IPhysicaiJ 
Sci.LiB.  f 


ITC 

1824 
1C2 
|a2 
Ino,8 


V. 


'  s 


CALIFORNIA.   DEPT.  OF  WATER  RESOURCES 
BULLETIN. 


Wt\ 

WrwJ^^'''^H^^^W^ 

Wm^^m^ 

fJI 

^^>MiMpA^ 

W^^i 

"2**^ 

S^flr^  ^^!f^J     V         -^j^^vj 

1  \ji^^^^  »    Jk   r 

in^ 

iM&  t^w^ 

/tm/K 

\ 


■'  K 


w 


i      If 


Uiu  LIUi 


^' 


JAN  1 1  iSBg) 


Li- 


::or 


V  s 


1  IftUFORNiA 


L 


STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA  ||^  16^9 

DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS 

DIVISION  OF  ENGINEERING  AND  IRRIGATION 


BULLETIN  No.  8 


PHYSICAL 

SCIENCES 

UBMKf 


COST  OF  WATER  TO 
IRRIGATORS  IN  CALIFORNIA 


8 


By 


Harky  F.  Blaney,   Associate  Irrigation  Engineer,   Division  of  Agricultural 
Engineering,  Bureau  of  Public  Roads,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture. 


(Based  on  data  gathered  under  cooperative  agreement  betvsreen  the  Bureau  of 
Public  Roads  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  the  California  State 
Department  of  Public  Work^,  and  the  University  of  California  Agricultural 
Kxperiment    Station.) 


W.  F.  McClure, 
State  Engineer,  and  Director  of  Public  Works. 


ulHlVERSlTY  OF  CALIFORNI 
DAVIS 


MAR   11   1958 

LIBRARY 


37104 


CALIFOB>  [A  STATE  PRINTING  OFFICE 

JOHN  E.  KINO,  State  Printer 

SACRAMENTO,    1925 


5.^    »  » 


STATE  OF  CALIFORNIA 
DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS 

DIVISION  OF   ENGINEERING  AND   IRRIGATION 


BULLETIN  No.  8 


COST  OF  WATER  TO 
IRRIGATORS  IN  CALIFORNIA 


By 


Harry  F.  Blaney,  Associate  Irrigation  Engineer,  Division  of  Agricultural 
Engineering,  Bureau  of  Public  Roads,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture. 


(Based  on  data  gathered  under  cooperative  agreement  between  the  Bureau  of  Public  Roads  of  tlie 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  the  California  State  Department  of  Public  Works,  and  the 
University  of  California  Agricultural  Experiment  Station.) 


W.  F.  McClxjre, 
State  Engineer,  and  Director  of  Pu])lic  Works. 


CALIFORNIA   STATE   PRtNTING   OFFICE 

JOUN  E.  KINO,  State  Printer 

SACRAMENTO,  1925 
37104 


TABLK  OF  CONTENTS. 


rage 

Iiiti  iKliutioM    7 

I'lililic     I'tilitics 8 

Nature   111'  :i    imlilii-    utility 8 

.Milluxl    dl"    rmaiiciiii; 8 

I'^lctors   ill   rust   111'   water   mulei'   piililie   utilities 9 

Water    rates 9 

Duly  of  water 9 

Cost  of  water  under  publie  utilities 10 

Description   nl'  table  1 10 

Duty  of  water 10 

Annual   cost   of  irrisation   water 12 

Cost  of  water  for  various  ci'ops 12 

Irrigation    Districts 1  ■* 

Nature  of  irrigation  districts 14 

Method  of  tinancing 14 

Bonds 14 

Assessments    14 

Factors  in  cost  of  water  uiuler  irrigation   districts 15 

District    tax 15 

Water  tolls 1» 

Duty  of  water 16 

Interest  on  capital  invested 16 

Cost  of  water  under  irrigation  districts 16 

Description  of  table   8 16 

Duty  of  water 19 

Annual  cost  of  irrigation  water 19 

Annual  cost  of  gravity  water 20 

Annual  cost  of  pumped  water 20 

Cost  of  water  for  various  crops -1 

Mutual  Water  Companies 24 

Nature  of  a  mutual  company 24 

Organization    and    financing 24 

Water   stock 24 

Factors  in  annual  cost  of  water  under  mutual  water  companies 25 

Assessments   and   water   rates 25 

Interest  on  capital  stock  _ 2G 

Duty  of  water 26 

Cost   of  water   under   mutual    water   companies 26 

Description  of  tables   17   and   IS 26 

Duty  of  water 29 

Annual  cost  of  irrigation  water 30 

Annual  cost  of  gravity  water 30 

Annual  cost  of  pumped  water 31 

Cost  of  water  for  various  crops 32 

2 — .•{7104 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS— Continued. 

rage 

I'livate  Pumping  Plants M 

Introduction    1 :;  1 

Factors  in  cost  "f  innnping  uiulcr  private  pumping  plants 34 

Cost  of  power 35 

Cost  of  fuel  oil 3 

Attendance    3 

Fixed   charges 3 

Pumping  plant   tests 3 

Discharge    "  3 

Lift 38 

Power 3S 

Plant    efficiency 38 

Description  of  plants 38 

Cost  of  pumping  under  private   pumping  plants 53 

Description  of  tahle   30 53 

Summary  of  table  30 53 

Description  of  table  32 54 

Summary  of  table  32 54 

Cost  of  pumped  water  for  various  crops 54 

Reducing   overhead  expenses 55 

Capital   Cost  and  Value  of  Irrigation   Water 56 

Cost  of  irrigation  systems 56 

Market   value   of   irrigation   water 56 

Summary 57 

Types  of  enterprises 57 

Annual  cost  of  irrigation  water 58 

Annual  cost  of  water  for  various  crops 58 

Cost  of  irrigation  enterprises 60 


Appendix 


fii 


Cost  of  water  for  irrigation   in  Soutliern  Calit'iuniM.  by  (\   I'^:.  Tait 62 


LIS'I^  OK  TAHI.KS. 


1.  Cost  of  water  for  irrigation   i!i  California.  Page 
Public  utilities  in   Northern,  Central,  and  Southern   California,   1922 facing      10 

2.  Summary  of  duty  of  water  under  public  utilities 10 

3.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  public  utilities 12 

■i.   Sunuiiary  of  animal  eiist  of  water  under  public  utilities  in  Nortliern  California 

for  various  crops l.T 

."i.    Sniurnary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  public  utilities  in  Central  California 

ftU'  various  crops 13 

6.  Suiniuary  of  ainuial  cost  of  water  under  public  utilities  in  Southern  California 

for  various  crops 13 

7.  Suiumary    of    annual    cost    of    w'ater    under    public    utilities    in    California    for 

\arious  crops 13 

8.  Cost  of  water  for  iirigation   in  California. 

Irrigation  Districts  in  Northern,  Central,  and  Southern  California,  1922,  facing     10 

9.  Summary   of  duty  of  water  under   irrigation   districts 19 

10.  .Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  irrigation  districts 19 

11.  Summary   of   annual    cost  of  water   under   irrigation    districts   delivering   all 

gravity    water 20 

12.  Summary   of   annual   cost   of   water   under    irrigation    districts   delivering  all 

pumped    water - 21 

13.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  irrigation  districts  in  Northern  Cali- 

fornia for  various  crops 21 

14.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  irrigation  districts  in  Central  California 

for  various  crops 22 

15.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  irrigation  districts  in  Southern  Cali- 

fornia for  various  crops 22 

16.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  irrigation  districts  in  California  for 

various  crops 22 

17.  Cost  of  water  for  irrigation  in  California. 

Mutual   water   companies    in    Northern    and   Central   California,    1922,      facing     20 

IS.   Cost  of  water  for  irrigation   in   California. 

Mutual  water  companies  in  Southern  California.  1922 facing     20 

19.  Summary  of  duty  of  water  under  mutual  water  companies 29 

20.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  mutual  water  companies 30 

21.  Summary    of    annual    cost   of  water   imder   mutual    companies    delivering   all 

gravity   water 31 

22.  Summary    of    annual    cost    of    water    undiT    mutual    companies    delivering    all 

pumped  water 31 

23.  Summary    of    annual    cost    of    water    under    mutual    companies    in    Northern 

California  for  various  crops . 32 

24.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  mutual  companies  in  Central  Cali- 

fornia for  various  crops 32 

25.  Summary    of    annual    cost    of    water    under    mutual    companies    in    Southern 

California  for  various  crops 34 

26.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  under  mutual  companies  in  California  for 

various   crops 34 

27.  Power  schedules  for  pumping,  Sacramento  Valley,   1922 35 

28.  Power  schedules  for  pumping  plants  tested  in  1923 35 

29.  Kstimated   fived  charges  fur  pumping  plants 37 


LIST  OF  TABLES— Continued. 

30.  Cost  of  water  for  irrigation  in  California.                                                                    Page 
Private  pumping  plants  in   Sacramento  Valley,   1922 facing  52 

31.  Summary  of  cost  of  pumping  for  electric  plants  tested  in  Sacramento  Valley  53 

32.  Cost  of  water  for  irrigation  in  California. 

Private  electric  pumping  plants   in  Central  California,   1923 facing  54 

33.  Summary  of  cost   of  pumping   in    Santa   Clara  Valle.v 54 

34.  Summary  of  pumping  plants  tested  in  San  Joaquin  Valley 54 

35.  Summary  of  pumping  plants  irrigating  citrus  trees 54 

36.  Summary  of  typical  pumping  plants  irrigating  alfalfa  in  Central  California.-  55 

37.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  for  citrus  trees 58 

38.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  for  deciduous  trees  and  vines 58 

39.  Summary  of  annual  cost  of  water  for  alfalfa GO 

Appendix — Cost  of  water  under  Southern  California  irrigation  companies,   191S —  62 


COST    OF   WATER   TO    IRRIGATORS 
IN    CALIFORNIA. 


By   Harry    F.   Bi.anky,   Associati-   Irrigation   iMieiiiPor,   Division    of  AKricultural  Engineering, 
Bureau  of  Public   Roads,    V    S.  Department  of  Agriculture. 

INTRODUCTION. 

This  report  roprosents  the  results  of  a  field  study  of  the  cost  of  water 
to  irrigators  under  various  types  of  irrijiation  enterprises  in  California, 
which  was  suppoi'ted  cooperatively  by  the  l^ui(^au  of  Public  Roads, 
Tniteil  States  Department  of  Ajiiiculture,  the  Department  of  Public 
Works  of  California,  and  the  University  of  California  Agricultural  Experi- 
UKMit  Station.  Water  yearly  is  becoming  of  higher  value  and  more 
difhcult  to  obtain,  in  consideration  of  which  l)ankers,  investors,  govern- 
ment officials,  (Migineers,  and  farmers  may  well  ask  what  expenditure 
can  be  justified  to  develop  a  water  supply  on  land  suital^le  for  growing 
high  grade  crops,  and  what  water  charge  can  such  land  pay.  Farmers 
and  prospective  farmers  are  in  need  of  such  cost  data  as  will  enable  them 
to  clioose  crops  that  ma}^  be  grown  profitably  under  existing  water 
charges. 

In  California  the  following  types  of  enterprises  may  furnish  irrigation 
water:  luiblic  utilities,  contract  companies,  irrigation  districts,  mutual 
water  companies,  individuals,  partnerships,  associations,  private  com- 
panies, United  States  Bureau  of  Reclamation,  United  States  Indian 
Service,  state  land  settlements,  water  works  districts,  municipal  improve- 
ment districts,  and  reclamation  districts.  Jdowever,  for  t\w  purpose  of 
this  investigation,  most  of  the  data  collected  may  be  placetl  under  one  of 
jour  classifications:  public  utilities,  irrigation  districts,  mutual  water 
companies,  or  private  pinnping  plants. 

For  a  report  of  this  character  to  be  useful  in  published  form,  it  must 
give  information  on  the  type  of  irrigation  system,  locality,  age,  source 
of  water  supply,  duty  of  water,  acreage  irrigated,  kind  of  crops,  capital 
invested,  and  water  charges,  in  addition  to  annual  cost  of  water  to  the 
irrigator.  Such  data  were  obtained  for  this  report  by  visiting  the  princi- 
pal irrigation  enterprises  of  the  state.  The  data  on  private  pumping 
plants  wvvv  obtained  i\v  making  fi(4d  tests  in  each  case. 

Figures  on  duty  of  water  given  in  the  i-eport  are  of  varying  degrees 
of  accuracy.  vSome  are  results  of  careful  measurements  or  metering. 
At  th(»  other  extreme  are  merely  the  liest  estimates  of  the  system  engineer 
or  superintentlent,  based  on  occasional  or  jjeriodical  gaging  and  close 
familiarity  with  the  use  of  water  under  the  system.  Great  care  was 
taken,  however,  to  have  the  figures  represent,  if  not  exactly,  at  least 
approximately,  the  true  use  of  wat(M',  and  none  have  been  included  that 
were  not  considered  by  the  system  engineer  or  superintendent  to  conform 
to  this  standard. 

The  factors  entering  into  the  cost  of  irrigation  water  differ  for  each 
type  of  enterpiise;  hence  they  will  be  tieated  separately  under  the 
headings  of  Public  Utilities,  Irrigation  Districts,  ^lutual  Water  Com- 
panies, and  Private  Pumping  Plants. 

The  data  have  been  compiled  and  sununarized  in  tables,  but  to  many 
readers  the  figures  would  have  little  meaning  without  further  explana- 


8  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

tion.  Accordingly,  each  type  of  enterprise  is  discussed  l)riefly,  with 
r(^gard  to  its  nature  and  the  factors  comprising  the  annual  cost  of  water; 
and  a  description  of  the  compilation  accompanies  each  table. 

PUBLIC   UTILITIES. 

Nature  of  a  public  utility — A  pul)lic  utility  water  company  is  defined 
by  the  state  law  as  follows : 

Section  1.  Whenevei-  any  person,  firm  or  private  cori)orati()ii,  their  lessees,  trustees, 
receivers  or  trustees  appointed  by  any  court  whatsoever  owning,  controUing,  operating 
or  managing  any  water  system  within  this  state,  sells,  leases,  rents  or  delivers  water 
to  any  person,  firm,  private  corporation,  municipality,  or  any  other  political  sub- 
division of  the  state  whatsoever,  except  as  limited  by  section  2,  hereof,  whether  imder 
contract  or  otherwise,  such  person,  firm  or  private  corporation  is  a  public  utilitv, 
and  subject  to  the  provisions  of  the  pulilic  utilities  act  of  this  state  and  the  juris- 
diction, control  and  regulation  of  the  railroad  commission  of  the  State  of  California, 
provided,  however,  that  whenever  the  owner  of  a  water  supply  not  otherwise  dedicatecl 
to  pubUc  use  and  primarily  used  for  domestic  purposes  l\v  such  owner  or  for  the 
irrigation  of  such  owner's  lands,  shall  sell  or  deliver  the  surjilus  of  such  water  for 
domestic  purposes  or  for  the  irrigation  of  adjoining  lands,  or  whenever  such  owner 
shall,  in  an  emergency  water  shortage  sell  or  deliver  water  from  such  suppty  to  others 
for  a  limited  period  not  to  exceed  one  irrigation  season,  or  whenever  such  owner 
shall  sell  or  deliver  a  i)ortion  of  such  water  su]iply  as  a  matter  of  accommodation  to 
neighbors  to  whom  no  other  sujiply  of  water  for  domestic  or  irrigation  purposes  is 
equally  available  then  such  owner  shall  not  be  subject  to  the  jvu-isdiction,  control  and 
regulation  of  the  Railroad  Commission  of  the  State  of  California;  provided,  further, 
however,  that  for  the  purpose  of  determining  the  status  of  any  person,  firm  or  private 
corporation,  their  lessees,  trustees,  receivers  or  trustees  ajjpointed  by  any  court 
whatsoever,  owning,  controlling,  operating  or  managing  any  water  system  or  water 
supply  within  this  state,  the  railroad  commission  may  hold  hearings  and  issue  process 
and  orders  in  like  manner  and  to  the  same  extent  as  provided  in  the  putjlic  utilities 
act  of  the  State  of  California  and  the  findings  and  conclusions  of  the  railroad  com- 
mission on  questions  of  fact  arising  vuider  this  act  shall  Ije  final  and  not  subject  to 
review,  except  as  provided  in  said  public  utilities  act. 

Sec.  2.  Whenever  anj^  private  corporation  or  association  is  organized  for  the 
purpose  solely  of  delivering  water  to  its  stockholders  or  members  at  cost,  and  delivers 
water  to  no  one  except  its  stockholders  or  members  at  cost,  such  private  corporation 
or  association  is  not  a  public  utility,  and  is  not  subject  to  the  jurisdiction,  control  or 
regvilation  of  the  railroad  commission  of  the  State  of  CaHfornia.* 

Contract  water  companies  selling  water  to  non-contract  holders  have 
been  classified  by  the  commission  as  puljlic  utilities  to  that  extent,  as 
have  mutual  water  companies  delivering  water  for  compensation  to 
others  than  their  members  or  stockholders. 

Method  of  financing — Most  pul^lic  utility  water  companies  have  been 
financed  In'  private  capital.  Theoretically  the  capital  stock  represents 
the  investment,  or  the  cost  of  water  rights,  developing  a  water  siipph', 
and  irrigation  works. 

The  original  irrigation  enterprises  of  this  type  were  generalh'  of  two 
classes:  those  under  which  water  rights  were  sold  for  a  fixcnl  sum,  with 
the  addition  of  an  annual  charge  for  maintenance  and  operation  of 
the  irrigation  system,  and  those  under  which  water  was  furnished  for 
an  annual  rental. 

Under  the  Public  Utilities  Act  of  1911  the  State  Railroad  Commission 
was  given  the  power  not  only  to  fix  the  rates  charged  by  water  corpora- 
tions, but  practically  to  regulate  their  entire  business,  including  manner 
of  service,  measurement  of  water,  incuiicMice  of  inde))tedness,  accounting, 

♦Statutes  1913,  Chaptor  80  and  Statutes  1923,  Chaptor  ]7«'. 


COST   OK    \V ATKK     To    IUKMCATOKS.  V 

profits,  etc.  I'^acli  (•()m|)any  is  rccjuircd  to  file  its  rates  witli  the  coiii- 
inissiou  aiul  to  ^ivv  a  yoarly  report,  on  spc'cial  foiius  provided,  showinfi; 
details  of  tluMr  opei-atioiis. 

FACTORS  IN  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

The  factors  that  dotorniiiio  the  annual  cost  of  wattM-  to  irrifj;ators  under 
pul)lie  utilities  urc  water  rates  and  duty  of  water. 

Walcr  ra/f.s— Under  the  public  utilities  the  water  rate  represents  the 
entire  cost  to  the  user  and  the  interest  on  investment  is  a  matter  of 
conc(M-n  for  the  coiporation  only.  Rates  established  by  the  Caliiornia 
Hailroad  Conunission  allow  a  reasonable  profit  to  the  utilities  on  the 
investment,  if  practicable.  In  fixin<i-  rates  the  commission  considers 
three  items  of  expense:  "Interest  on  the  investment,"  "depreciation," 
and  "maintenance  and  operation." 

Kifiht  per  cent  interest  is  the  maximum  allowed  on  invested  capital, 
which  is  determined  by  an  appraisal  of  physical  property  on  original 
cost  basis.  The  company's  records  of  cost  are  not  depended  upon  unless 
they  are  complete  and  accurate.  In  .some  cases  full  cash  was  not  paid 
in  for  stock,  and  money  to  build  the  plant  came  from  sale  of  bonds. 
If  the  company  is  paying  interest  on  bonds,  then  that  interest  must  come 
out  of  the  allowance  for  return  on  investment,  but  if  interest  on  the  bonds 
is  less  than  this  amount  the  stockholder  gets  part  of  the  profit  and  the 
bond  hokler  gets  part  only.  There  is  no  profit  over  thtit  set  by  the 
connnission  allowed,  but  this  is  liberal  considering  that  the  utility,  under 
regulation  by  the  state,  is  assured  of  that  return. 

The  amount  of  investment  having  been  determined,  depreciation  is 
computed.  Generally  this  is  done  by  the  sinking  fund  method.  The  main- 
tenance and  operation  expenses  are  generally  not  hard  to  determine,  as 
under  the  law  the  companies  keep  fairly  accurate  records  of  these  items. 

Public  utility  water  rates  are  not  uniform  in  their  units  of  measure- 
ments. About  50  per  cent  of  the  companies  use  the  flat  rate  per  year — 
either  so  much  per  acre  per  3'ear  or  a  fixed  amoiuit  per  miner's  inch  per 
veai*.  In  manv  cases  the  acre  unit  is  used,  no  doubt  because  when  the 
original  rates  were  established  water  was  so  cheap  and  plentiful  that 
companies  did  not  feel  justified  in  making  the  expenditures  necessary 
to  measure  it.  Obviously  under  this  .-system  an  irrigator  will  pay  just  as 
much  per  acre  whether  he  uses  one  acre  foot  or  four  acre  feet,  and  there 
is  no  incentive  to  conserve  water.  A  few  companies  have  endeavored  to 
make  the  flat  rate  more  uniform  ])v  varying  the  rate  per  acre,  depending 
upon  the  crops  grown. 

Other  units  used  are  the  acre-foot,  cubic  foot,  cubic  foot  per  second  for 
24  hours,  per  irrigation,  miner's  inch  per  hour,  and  miner's  inch  per  24 
hours.  The  value  of  the  miner's  inch  also  varies,  in  most  cases  being 
equal  to  either  1  50  second-foot  or  1  40  second-foot. 

Duty  of  water — The  amount  of  water  used  by  the  irrigator  is  a  factor 
in  comj)uting  the  animal  cost  of  water  per  acre-foot  when  the  flat  rate  is 
used.  It  is  also  a  factor  in  determining  the  annual  cost  per  acre  when  the 
rate  is  ba.sed  on  some  unit  of  measurement. 

The  data  given  on  duty  of  water  represent  the  average  amount  of 
water  delivered  to  the  irrigator;  that  is,  the  amount  of  water  paid  for. 
This  may  l)e  considered  in  most  cases  the  net  duty  of  water  for  the 
svstem. 


10 


OKI'AirriVIENT  OF  T'TTBIJC  WORKS. 


COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

Description  of  Table  1 — Table  1  has  been  prepared  to  show  annual  cost 
of  water  to  irrigators  undcM-  pul^lic  iitiliti(^s,  the  data  being  grouped  as 
representing  northern,  central  and  southern  California.  In  addition 
to  the  cost  of  water  to  irrigators,  factors  which  aff(>ct  the  cost  of  water 
and  other  useful  facts  are  shown  in  the  table.  Most  of  the  column 
headings  are  self  explanatory;  hence  only  a  few  of  th(Mn  will  be  described 
in  detail  here. 

Column  4,  "Year  organized"  may  or  may  not  indicate  the  age  of  the 
water  rights,  as  some  companies  have  reorganized  or  bought  out  early 
rights  to  water. 

Column  17,  "Water  charges  per  acre-foot"  is  a  reduction  of  column 
16,  "Rate"  to  an  acre-foot  Ijasis  in  such  cases  as  permit  the  reduction. 

Column  18  shows  the  water  charges  "Per  acre  for  average  amount 
used."  If  the  water  charge  is  a  flat  rate  per  acre,  column  18  equals  column 
16,  otherwise  column  18  is  the  product  of  column  17  and  column  15. 

Column  19  gives  "Cost  of  water  per  acre  for  the  first  acre-foot"  antl 
is  equal  to  figures  in  colunui  18  if  aflat  rate  per  acre  is  used;  otherwise 
it  is  equal  to  column  17. 

Column  20  shows  the  "Cost  of  water  per  acre  for  the  average  amount 
used."     It  is  equal  to  column  18. 

Column  21,  "Cost  per  acre-foot  for  the  average  amount  used,"  is 
obtained  by  dividing  colunm  20  by  the  duty  of  water  shown  in  column 
15. 

Columns  19,  20  and  21  indicate  the  cost  of  water,  including  the  interest 
on  capital  invested.  Public  utility  water  rates  include  interest  on  capital 
invested  and  represent  the  entire  charge  to  the  user.  It  was  deemed 
impracticable  to  estimate  the  interest  as  it  would  require  a  comprehensive 
study  of  each  case. 

While  the  figures  in  Tal)le  1  represent  the  cost  of  water  to  irrigators 
they  may  not  in  some  cases  indicate  what  it  actually  costs  the  com- 
panies to  deliver  the  water,  mainly  because  some  companies  have  had 
rate  hearing  ]:)efore  the  state  railroad  commission  and  luive  been  allowed 
8  per  cent  interest  on  their  investment,  while  other  companies  which 
perhaps  did  not  care  to  antagonize  the  farmers  have  never  had  their 
rates  before  the  commission  and  in  some  instances  are  not  making 
interest  on  capital  investcnl.  Tal)le  1  is  condensed  in  the  following 
tables: 

Dxli/  of  ivdler — Table  2  is  a  sunnnary  of  cohnnn  15  of  Table  1  showing 
the  mininunn  and  maximum  duty  of  water  under  public  utilities  in 
northei'n,  central  and  southern  California  and  foi'  the  state  as  a  whole. 
The  number  of  companies  considered  is  also  shown. 

TABLE  2— SUMMARY  OF  DUTY  OF  WATER  UNDER  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 


Sect  ion 

of  California 

Number 

of 

coniijanics 

con.siflored 

Quantity   of   water   used, 
per  acre 

Mininunn, 
aerc-feet 

Maxiinmn, 
acro-fcct 

N'ort  hem 

13 

24 

9 

46 

1   00 
1   00 
1   00 
1  .  00 

f)  00 

Central 

6  o2 

Southern                                         -      

A  00 

Entire  state                                                        -      _    -- 

()  o2 

■ ■     ■       / 

11 


r^ 


if'd 


PHYSICAL 
SCIENCES 
LIBRARY 


Name  of  company 


Northern  Californu. 

Conetaod  Water  Co. ' -- 

Cottonwood  Irrigation  and  Mining  Co- 
El  Dorado  Water  Corporation 

Excelsior  Water  and  Power  Co , 

Natomas  Water  Co 

North  Fork  Diteh  Co 

Pacific  Gaeand  Electric  Co 

Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Co... 

Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Co 

Palermo  Land  and  Water  Co.  • 

South  Feather  Land  and  Wat«r  Co.  ».... 
Sutter  Butte  Canal  Co 


Yolo  Water  and  Power  Co.. 


Central  California. 

Consolidated  Canal  Co.* 

Eastside  Canal  and  Irrigation  Co 

Empire  Water  Co. ' 

Foothill  Ditch  Co 

Kern  County  Canal  and  Water  Co 

.\nder6on  Canal  Co 

Buena  Vista  Canal  Co 

Central  Canal  Co.  (Calloway) 


TABLE  I.    COST  OF  WATER  FOR  IRRIGATION  IN  CALIFORNIA. 
Public  Utilities  In  Northern,  Central  and  Southern  California.    1922. i 


East  Side  Canal  Co 

Farmer  Canal  Co ._ .,.".... 

Gates  Canal  Co __ 

James  Canal  Co 

Kern  Island  Canal  Co 

Kern  River  Canal  and  Irrigation  Co 

Lerdo  Canal  Co _ 

Pioneer  Canal  Co 

Plunkett  Canal  Co '.""'. 

Stine  Canal  Co _,, 

Kings  County  Canal  Co... ---.!"'"" 

Madera  Canal  and  Irrigation  Co _ *'" 

Monterey  County  Water  Co ."" 

Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Co ..... 

San  Benito  County  Water  Co ...'.'.'.'..'. 

San  Joaquin  and  Kings  River  Canal  and  Irrigation 


Co.. 


San  Joaquin  and  Kings  River  Canal  and  Irrigation 
Co. 


San  Joaquin  and  Kings  River  Canal  and  Irrigation 
Co 


Southern  Calipornu. 
.^ppleton  Land.  Water  and  Power  Co 

Bell  Water  Co ,',". 

California  Michigan  Land  and  Water'Co" 

Cuyamaca  Water  Co 

Farmers  Ditch  Co _ !!"!" 

Lake  Hemet  Water  Co. ' 

San  Gabriel  Valley  Water  Co "     ' 

Santa  Clara  Water  and  Irrigation  Co.... I 

Sweetwater  Water  Co 


LosMolinos.. 

Hornbrook 

PlacerviUe 

Smartsville... 
Sacramento... 

Sacramento 

Auburn 

Nevada  City.. 

Oroville 

Palermo 

Oroville 

Gridley 

Woodland 


Fresno... 
Newman. 
Lemoore.. 


Bakersfield. 
Bakersfield. 
Bakersfield. 
Bakersfield. 


Bakersfield.. 
Bakersfield . . 
Bakersfield . . 
Bakersfield , . 
Bakersfield.. 
Bakersfield . . 
Bakersfield . . 
Bakersfield.. 
Bakersfield.. 
Bakersfield.. 
Los  Angeles.. 

Madera 

Spreckels 

Sonora 

HoUister 


LosBanos.. 


Los  Banos.. 
LosBanos.. 


Hesperia 

Bell 

Los  Angeles.. 
San  Diego... 
Santa  Paula. 


Hemet 

Los  Angeles.. 
Saticoy 


National  City.. 


County 


Tehama 

Siskiyou 

El  Dorado 

Vuba  and  Nevada 

Sac'to  and  El  Dorado.. 

Placer 

Placer 

Nevada 

Butte 

Butte 

Butte  and  Yuba.- 

Butte  and  Sutter 


Yolo.. 


Fresno.. 
Merced . 
Kings... 
Tulare.. 

Kern 

Kern 

Kern..-. 
Kern 


Kem 

Kern 

Kern 

Kern 

Kern 

Kern 

Kern 

Kern 

Kern 

Kern 

Tulare  and  Kings.. 

Madera 

Monterey 

Tuolumne 

San  Benito 


Merced. 


Fresno 

Stanislaus. 


San  Bernardino.. 

Los  Angeles 

Los  Angeles 

San  Diego 

Ventura 


Riverside 

Los  Angeles.. 
Ventura 


San  Diego.. 


1907 
1904 
1919 


1899 
1905 
1905 
1905 


1908 
1912 


1901 
1887 
1901) 


1878 
1878 
1891 


1892 
1880 


1878 
1870 
1892 
1892 
1878 
1878 
1878 
1905 
1888 
1901 
1905 
1908 


1905 
1905 


1911 
1902 

'mi' 

1917 

1887 
1908 
1871 

1902 


Source  of  water  supply 


Mill  and  Antelope  Creeks 

Cottonwood  Creek 

American  River.  Webber  Creek. 

Y'uba  River  and  Deer  Creek 

American  River 

American  River 

South  Yuba  River 

South  Y'uba  River 

Feather  River.. 

Feather  River 

Lost  Creek 

Feather  River 


Cache  Creek.. 


Kings  River 

San  Joaquin  River.. 
Kings  River 


Kern  River 

Kern  River.. 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Kern  River 

Floodwater  Tule  River 

Fresno  and  Merced  Rivers-- 

.\iioyo  Seco  River , . 

Stanislaus  River 

San  Benito  River 


San  Joaquin  and  Kings  Rivers. 
San  Joaquin  and  Kings  Rivers. 
San  Joaquin  and  Kings  Rivers. 


Deep  Creek 

Wells . 

Wells ;;" 

Boulder  and  San  Diego  Rivers. 
Santa  Clara  River. 

Lake  Hemet 

Welle 

Santa  Clara  River. 


B  S 


Sweetwater  Reservoir. 


0 

100 

100 

0 

0 

0 

100 

0 


Area  irrigated 


4.800 

X 

1,383 


26,400 
350 


125 
856 


708 
30 


550 

535 

10 


90 

'%m 


2,200 
1,000 


Remarks,-.  Estimated,    i Hate  for  1-5  M.I.  per  month.    ■  1  M.L  to  5  acres,  basis.    <  1  M.I.  to  5.5.  acres,  basis.    'Contract 
37104 — facing  p.    10. 


2,814 
"9"333" 


3.281 
13,115 
6,760 
2,455 
1,340 


3,720 
1,445 
2,660 


16,100 
1,200 


Field 
crops 


1.964 
5,378 


2,407 
580 


1.324 

404 

1,236 


2,085 


3,409 

3,747 

3.080 

181 

803 


311 

'V.iio 


10,000 
600 
6.000 
2,700 
1,683 
1,900 

26,400 
350 
1,500 
2,065 
1.800 

66,778 


23,484 


100,400 
6,600 

116,000 
1,800 


'2,400 
8,779 
23,096 
10,820 
5,750 
2,753 
"300 
■6,800 
35.015 
5.905 
2.384 
8,935 
'1,000 
6,100 
1,203 
12,202 
2,100 
2,200 
1,000 

79,877 


210 
05 

'700 
4,000 
4.200 

7,000 

'700 

2,260 


fp  fa  ^ 


3.30 
1  bO 
I  14 
1.23 
3.40 

1  70 
1.36 

2  37 
2.75 
1  33 

'2  00 
2,60 
'6  00 
1  00 
2.00 
5.95 


2.10 
'2.00 
•2  00 
'2  00 


3  82 

1  47 

2  37 
'2  60 

3  06 

2  36 
'3  00 

3  82 

1  99 
6.06 
6  52 

2  70 
'3  00 

3  25 
'1  00 

1  07 
1  50 
I  29 
1  60 

'2.20 

'2  20 

'2  20 


'1  50 
I  31 

'1  00 

'1  00 
1  52 
3.00 
1  00 
1  50 
1  60 

'3  00 
1  00 


Factors  in  aimual  cost  of  water 


Water  charges 


Rate 


J3  50  per 
0  10  per 

30  00  per 
0  25  per 
5  00  per 

35  00  per 

45  00  per 
0  16  per 
0  10  per 
0  22  per 

60  00  per 

2  30  per 
7  80  per 

3  00  per 
3  00  per 
3  00  per 


acre  (2-5  *M.l.  per  mo.) 

'M.I.  per  24  hours 

'M.I.  per  season 

'M.I.  per  24  hours 

acre 

=M.I.  per  year 

'M.I.  per  year 

'M.I.  per  24  hours 

'M.l.  per  24  hours 

'M.l.  per  24  hours 

'M.l.  per  season 

acre  for  most  crops 

acre  for  rice  year  to  year. .. 

cu.  ft.  per  24  hrs. — trees 

cu.  ft.  per  24  hrs.— Alfalfa., 
cu.  ft.  per  24  hrs. — rice 


0  75  per  acre  +  0.36  C.I.D.  tax.. 
2  34  per  acre  (average) 

1  OOperacre 

0  14  per  'M.I.  per  24  hrs 


-24  hrs.. 
-24  hrs.- 


1  60  per  acre 

0  76  per  cu.  ft.  per  sec- 

0  75  per  cu.  ft.  per  sec- 

1  50  per  acre _ 

0  75  per  cu.  ft.  per  sec. — 24  hrs 

0  76  per  eu.  ft.  per  sec. — 24  hrs 

0  75  per  cu.  ft.  per  sec. — 24  hrs 

1  50  per  acre 

0  75  per  cu.  ft.  per  sec.  for  24  hrs 

0  60  per  cu.  ft.  per  sec.  for  24  hrs 

0.  75  per  cu.  ft.  per  sec.  for  24  hrs 

0  75  per  cu .  ft .  per  sec.  for  24  hrs 

1  50  per  acre  - 

0  75  per  cu.  ft.  per  sec.  for  24  hrs 

1  00  per  acre 

0  50  to  1.25  per  ac.-ft.  (Sl.OO  average). 

1  50  per  irrigation  (2  irrig.).. 

0  21  per  =M.I.  per  24  hrs 

5  00  per  acre  for  2  irrigations 


1  75  per  acre  in  Merced  County 

1  25  per  acre  in  Fresno  County 

2  25  per  acre  in  Stanislaus  County. 


0  015  per  'M.l.  per  hour.. 

2  00  per  100  »M.I.  per  hour 

0  04  and  0.20  per  100  eu.  ft 

0  06  per  100  cu.  ft.  (average) 

0  20  per  'M.I.  iier  24  hrs.  (majority) 

0  lOper  'M.l.  per  24  hrs.  (alfalfa) 

0  40  per  "M.l.  per  24  hrs 

0  ,50  per  1000  cu.  ft... 

0  20  per  'M.I.  per  24  hrs.  (beans  and  orchard). 

0  04  to  0.10  per  'M.l.  per  24  hrs.  (alfalfa) 

0  05  per  100  eu.  ft 


12  02 

"s'oi 


3  23 
2  02 
5  65 


1  SI 
1  51 
1  51 


0  38 
0  38 
0  38 


0  38 
0  30 
0  38 
0  38 


S3  50 
3  23 
'6  00 

6  20 
5  00 
'7  00 
'8  IS 

7  66 
5  56 
7  38 

•12  00 

2  30 

7  80 
I  51 

3  02 

8  98 


1  11 

2  34 
1  00 
5  64 


0  38 
"i  65 
"4'24 


12  10 

20  62 
26  14 

5  04 
2  52 
10  10 

21  78 
5  04 

"2i"78' 


1  50 
0  56 

0  90 

1  50 
1  16 

0  89 

1  14 
1  50 

0  76 

1  .52 

2  48 
1  03 
1  50 
1  24 
I  00 
1  07 

3  00 
6  47 
5  00 

1  75 

1  25 

2  25 


13  62 
15  85 

20  62 
25  14 

7  66 
7  56 
10  10 
32  67 
7  56 
5  54 

21  78 


Annual  cost  of  water 

including  interest  on 

capital  invested 


'$2  00 

2  02 

6  00 
5  04 
5  00 

7  00 

8  18 

3  23 
2  02 
5  55 

12  00 
2  30 


1  51 
1  51 
1  61 


1  11 

2  34 

1  00 

2  82 


1  50 
0  38 

0  38 

1  50 
0  38 
0  38 

0  38 

1  50 
0  38 
0  30 
0  38 

0  38 

1  60 

0  38 

1  00 
1  00 


4  24 

5  00 

1  76 

1  25 

2  26 


9  08 
12  10 

20  62 
25  14 

6  04 
2  52 
10  10 

21  78 
6  04 
2  52 

21  78 


3» 


c  o 
a.G' 


S3  50 
3  23 
6  00 
6  20 

6  00 

7  00 

8  IS 
7  66 
5  56 
7  38 

12  00 

2  30 

7  80 
I  51 

3  02 

8  98 


1  11 

2  34 
1  00 
5  64 


1  60 
0  56 

0  90 

1  50 
1  16 

0  89 

1  14 
1  60 

0  76 

1  52 

2  48 
1  03 
1  50 
1  24 
1  00 
1  07 

3  00 
5  47 
5  00 

1  75 

1  25 

2  25 


13  62 
15  85 

20  62 
25  14 

7  66 
7  56 
10  10 
32  67 
7  66 
5  54 

21  78 


company.   « Taken  over  by  IrrigationDistrict.    '  40  miner's  inches^I  see.-ft.     » 50  miner's  inehcs=l  sec.-ft.    M6  miner's  inches— 1  sec. -ft.    M. I.,  abbreviation  for  miner's  inch,    x  Acreage  unknown. 


Cost  of  w atkk'  to  iuimc atohs. 


11 


PLATE  I. 


Fig.    1.      Dam    across   Sacramento    River   at    head    of    Anderson-Cottonwood 

Irrigation   District. 


_^fj 


.•*? 


..•.Ji5^«*--- 


i«!gj.'f# 


■":n'ria^lX: 


Fig.   2.     A  concrete-lined  Irrigation  canal   on  the  Orland   I'roject  of  tlie   L'nited 

States  Keclam.ition    finroaii. 


3 — 37104 


10 


Descriptk 
of  water  to 
representing 
to  the  cost 
and  other 
headings  ar 
in  detail  he: 

CoUnnn  ^ 
water  right 
rights  to  w; 

Cohnnn 
16,  "Rate" 

Cohnnn 
used."    Ift 
16,  otherwif 

Cohnnn 
is  equal  to 
it  is  equal  t 

Column  1 
used."     It  ] 

Column 
obtained  b^ 
15. 

Columns 
on  capital  i; 
invested  ar 
impractical; 
study  of  eai 

While  th' 
they  may  i 
panics  to  d 
rate  hearinj 
8  per  cent 
perhaps  di( 
rates  befor 
interest  on 
tables: 

Duty  of  u 
the  minimi 
northern,  c 
The  numbc 

TAB 


Northern 

Central 

Southern 

Entire  state. 


COST  OK   WATER   To    IRK'Ki  \T()|{«. 


11 


PLATE  I. 


Fig.    1.      Dam   across   SacrameiUo    Kivtr   at    head    of    AiukTSdii-Cotlonwoml 

Irrigation   District. 


Fic.    2.      A  concrete-liiU'd   irritfalion   canal   on   tlu-   (Jrlaiid    I'rojtct   ui"   the    I'liiled 

States   lU'claniation    F'.iircau. 


3—37104 


12 


DEPARTMENT  OP  PUBT.IC  WORKS. 


In  Table  2  the  high  duty  of  1.00  acre-foot  per  acre  is  found  under 
systems  which  grow  either  fruits  or  grains  that  require  Httle  water,  or 
which  are  short  of  water.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  of  the  systems 
having  such  a  high  duty,  the  lowest  cost  per  acre-foot  is  $1.00  per  acre- 
foot  while  the  highest  is  $25.14.  Both  companies  referred  to  furnish 
gravity  water  only,  but  the  one  having  the  low  rate  depends  mainly  on 
flood  waters,  while  that  having  the  highest  rate  has  expensive  storage 
works. 

The  low  duty  of  6.52  acre-feet  per  acre  is  not  representative,  as  the 
system  suffers  high  seepage  losses.  The  6  acre-feet  per  acre  duty,  shown 
for  a  project  where  rice  is  grown,  is  a  value  better  representing  the 
lowest  duty. 

^' Anmml  cost  of  irrigation  .water — Table  3  is  ^  summary  of  .columns  20 
and  21  in  Table  1,  showing  the  minimum"  arid  imaximumcM3st  of  water 
under  public  utilities  in  northern,  central  and  southern  California,  and 
for  the  state  as  a  whole.  The  number  of  companies  considered  is  also 
shown.      '-"  •  ''v^* 

TABLE  3— SUMMARY  OF  THE  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 


1 

Niiniber 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  interest  on  capital  invested 

.  Section  of  California 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Nortficrn                                    _    - 

13 

24 

9 

46 

$1  51 

.  °^ 
5  54 

56 

$12  00 

5  64 

32  67 

32  67 

$0  92 

30 

1   85 

30 

$6  01 

Central                 _.            _ 

4  24 

Southern                       ^    ^    _    _    __ 

25   14 

j5ntire  state     -    .    __    _-    - 

25  14 

Practically  all  the  water  used  under  the  public  utilities  in  northern 
California  is  gravity  with  some  storage.  In  central  California  where  the 
cheapest  water  is  found  it  is  all  gravity  with  very  little  storage.  In 
southern  California  the  high  rates  are  due  either  to  expensive  stoi-age 
woi-ks  for  gravity  water,  cost  of  pumping  water,  or  costly  distriljution 
systems  on  account  of  scarcity  of  water. 

Cost  of  water  for  various  crops— It  is  difficult  to  make  veiy  accurate 
comparisons  of  the  cost  of  irrigation  water  according  to  crops  grown, 
because  most  systems  furnish  water  to  more  than  one  kind  of  crop 
and  very  few  keep  records  that  would  make  this  possible.  However,  the 
following  summaries  of  columns  20  and  21,  Table  1,  give  some  indication 
of  the  variations  in  costs  for  citrus  trees,  deciduous  trees  and  vines, 
alfalfa  and  rice,  in  northern,  central  and  southern  California  and  the 
state  as  a  whole.  The  numbei-  of  companies  considered  is  shown  in  (^icli 
table. 


COST   OK   WATKK    TO    IKIv'KIATC  )KS.  1'^ 

TABLE  4     SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  PUBLIC   UTILITIES  IN 
NORTHERN  CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  in 

tcrest  on  capital  invested 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees 

5 

12 

4 

2 

$5  00 

1  51 

2  30 

7  80 

$12  00 

12  00 

6  20 

8  98 

SI  47 

92 

92 

1   30 

$6  00 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa                      

6  01 
5  04 

Rice 

1    51 

TABLE  5     SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  PUBLIC  UTILITIES  IN  CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  interest  on  capital  invested 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimiim 

Maximum 

None 

15 
19 

Xnnr 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa 

Rice 

$0  56 
56 

$5  64 
3  00 

SO  30 
30 

$4  24 
2  00 

TABLE   6     SUMMARY   OF   ANNUAL   COST   OF   WATER   UNDER   PUBLIC   UTILITIES   IN 
SOUTHERN  CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  interest  on  capital  invested 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees 

7 
7 
6 
None 

$7  56 
7  56 
5  54 

$32  67 
25  14 
25  14 

$5  04 
5  04 
1  85 

$25  14 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa.    . 

25   14 
25  14 

H  i  CO 

TABLE  7— SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST   OF  WATER  UNDER  PUBLIC  UTILITIES  IN 

CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  interest  on  capital  invested 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees 

12 

34 

29 

2 

$5  00 

56 

56 

7  80 

$32  67 
25  14 
25  14 

8  98 

$1  47 

30 

30 

1   30 

$25  14 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa- 

25  14 
25   14 

Rice .            . . 

1   51 

The  figures  in  tal>k'.s  4,  5,  0  and  7,  iiulicate  clearly  that  the  cost  of 
irri{2;ati()ii  water  is  a  potent  influence  in  (leteriniiiing  the  kind  of  crops 
that  can  be  grown  profitable  The  high(^st  costs  per  acre-foot  are  found 
where  citrus  trees  are  irrigated;  tlien  follow  deciduous  trees  and  vines, 


14  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

alfalfa,  and  rice.  The  high  cost  per  acre  for  rice  is  due  to  the  huge 
amount  of  water  used.  However,  the  averag^e  cost  per  acre-foot  for  rice 
is  less  than  the  cost  for  any  of  tlie  other  crops  shown. 

IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS. 

Nature  of  Irrigation  Districts — The  irrigation  district*  ma,y  l)e  defined 
as  a  public  corporation  organized  under  state  laws  empowering  it  to  issue 
bonds  and  levy  and  collect  taxes,  with  the  object  of  provichng  funds 
for  a  water  supply  to  irrigate  lands  within  its  boundaries,  and  for  the 
operation  and  maintenance  of  its  irrigation  system.  California  irrigation 
districts  are  political  subdivisions  of  the  state  and  are  organized  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  county  in  which  they  are  located.  The  affairs  of 
a  district  are  administered  by  a  board  of  directors,  assessor,  tax  collector, 
treasurer  and  secretary,  all  of  whom  are  elected  except  the  secretar}^  who 
is  appointed. 

Method  of  financing — Districts  issue  bonds  to  provide  fvmds  for  o])tain- 
ing  a  water  supply  and  distribution  system  to  irrigate  land  within  their 
boundaries.  Taxes  are  levied  to  raise  funds  to  retire  these  bonds  when 
they  fall  due,  for  interest  on  the  bonds,  the  cost  of  operation  and  main- 
tenance of  the  system,  and  all  other  general  expenses.  Some  districts 
have  a  water  toll  or  charge  to  cover  the  cost  of  operation  and  main- 
tenance. 

Bonds. 

Irrigation  district  bonds  are  legal  investments  for  savings  banks, 
trust  companies,  trust  fimds,  and  insurance  companies,  when  ai:)j'>i-oved 
by  the  state  irrigation  district  bond  commission.  In  certifying  the  bonds 
the  commission  limits  the  bonded  indebtedness  to  60  per  cent  of  the 
market  value  of  the  irrigation  system  and  the  land  within  the  district. 
These  bonds  are  exempt  from  personal  property  tax  in  California. 

Assessments. 

The  district  assessment  roll  is  prepared  and  equalizcnl  by  the  irrigation 
district  officials,  who  likewise  attend  to  levying  and  collecting  the  taxes. 
Improvements  are  not  assessed.  The  assessed  valuation  does  not  include^ 
the  value  of  the  irrigation  system.  Values  shown  in  the  assessment 
roll  are  for  the  land  alone. 

The  method  of  fixing  valuations  per  acre  for  assessment  purposes 
varies.  Some  districts  assess  all  the  land  on  a  flat  rate  per  acre.  Other 
districts  base  their  valuations  on  the  charactei-  of  the  land,  such  as 
irrigable  by  gravity,  irrigable  by  pumping,  alkalized  swamp,  river 
bottom,  hillside,  town  lots,  or  non-irrigable  lands.  Districts  have  set 
one  valuation  on  lands  served  by  system  and  another  for  lands  not 
reached  l)y  the  present  ditches.  In  some  cases  districts  vary  assessed 
valuations  according  to  distances  from  town  centers. 

The  assessments  are  generally  paid  in  two  installments,  the  first  lieing 
delinquent  on  the  last  Monday  in  December  and  X\w  s(M'ond  d(>lin(iuent 
on  the  last  Monday  in  June.  These  taxes  if  unpaid  become  a  lien  on  the 
land. 

"The  rate  of  assessments  levied  is  ascertained  l)y  deducting  15  per  (-ent 
for  anticipated  dcliiKiuencies  fioni  the  aggregate  assessed  vnhie  of  th(> 

^  *For  ch'tailpil   inforinatioti    on   irriRatioii   districts,   soo   Bulletin   7,   "Californiii    Irnnatidii    Districts' 
Laws;"  Califoriiiu  Stiitc  Dcpiirtincnl   of  Public  Works,  Division  of  Engiiiccniig  anil  Irnnalion. 


COS'I"    Ol'    WATIOU-    'I'd    IlxK'KiA'I'OKS.  15 

|)i'(t|)(M'ty  in  the  district  as  it  appears  on  the  asscssiiiciit  roll  for  the  current 
year,  and  then  dividinj;'  th(»  sum  to  he  I'aiscd  by  the  remainder  of  such 
ajroiTirate  assessed  value."* 

S|HH'ial  assessments  may  l)e  made  if  the  majority  of  votes  cast  at  a  special 
election  favor  them. 

FACTORS  IN  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS. 

The  main  factors  determining  the  amnial  cost  of  water  to  iri'if^ators, 
uiidei-  an  iri'ifiation  disti-ict,  are  district  tax,  water  tolls,  duty  of  water, 

and  interest  on  capital  invested. 

District  tax  The  district  tax  may  he  sef>;ref2;ated  into  bond  interest, 
hond  principal,  rentals  due,  pei'manent  improvements,  cost  of  power, 
maintenance  and  operation,  administration  and  general  purposes.  How- 
ever, most  districts  limit  their  segregation  to  hond  interest,  bond  princi- 
pal, and  geiuM'al  fund.  Hence  it  is  hard  to  determine  from  the  tax  rate 
just  what  i)()rtion  of  the  gen(n-al  fund  is  used  for  permanent  construc- 
tion, for  maintenance  and  operation,  or  general  purposes. 

In  order  to  ascertain  that  portion  of  the  tax  which  goes  toward  annual 
cost,  the  tax  for  hond  principal  and  permanent  improvements  should 
be  subtracted  from  the  total  tax  antl  charged  to  capital  account.  In 
other  words,  that  portion  of  the  tax  to  be  charged  to  annual  cost  includes 
interest  on  bonds,  maintenance  and  operation,  and  other  general  expenses. 

In  reducing  the  district  tax  from  the  rate  per  one  hundred  dollars 
assessed  valuation  to  a  rate  per  acre,  the  usual  assessed  valuation  per 
acre  for  irrigable  lands  was  used.  This  was  taken  instead  of  the  average 
assessed  valuation  per  acre,  the  latter,  in  some  cases,  being  too  low 
because  of  low  valuation  of  non-irrigable  land,  or  too  high  because  of 
higii  valuation  of  lands  in  towns. 

In  computing  the  tax  per  acre,  an  average  of  the  1921-1922  and  1922- 
1923  assessments  was  used  rather  than  those  for  a  single  year,  because 
some  of  the  district  expenses  ma}^  overlap  from  one  assessment  year  to 
the  other.  The  fiscal  years  used  by  the  districts  are  not  uniform  and 
few  districts  keep  their  records  on  the  basis  of  the  calendar  ^x^ar.  Generally 
assessments  levied  in  one  year  are  to  cover  estimated  expenses  for  the 
following  y(>ar.  The  assessments  so  made  are  collected  in  most  districts 
in  two  installments,  th(>  first  in  December  of  the  year  made  and  the 
second  in  June  of  the  following  year.  P\jr  this  reason  some  authorities 
would  consider  the  1922-1923  assessment  to  represent  the  cost  for  the 
year  1923,  while  others  would  consider  the  average  of  the  1921-1922 
and  1922-1923  assessments  as  representing  the  cost  of  the  calendar 
year  1922. 

Water  tolls — Some  iri'igation  districts  secure  their  funds  for  operation 
and  maintenance  purposes  from  water  tolls,  using  various  units  to 
determine  t  he  water  charge.  Many  districts  feel  that  the  cost  of  installing 
measuring  devices  and  of  measuring  the  amount  of  water  used  by  each 
irrigator  is  prohil)itive,  hence  their  wat(M-  toll  is  based  on  a  flat  rate  pei- 
acre.  In  a  few  instances  the  flat  rate  varies  according  to  the  crop  grown 
or  to  whet  Ik  I  the  \v;itei'  is  gravity  or  pumped.  Other  districts  charge 
l)y  the  acre  foot,  hour-inch,  or  cubic  foot,  depending  upon  their  kind 
of  measuring  (1(> vices. 

♦Section  60  of  Ciilifomia  IrriKatioii  District  .\ct. 


1()  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

These  unit  charges  may  also  vary  according  to  amount  of  water  used. 
A  few  districts  assess  their  tolls  on  the  })asis  of  an  irrigation,  the  rate 
varying  with  the  crops  grown  or  the  metho<l  of  irrigating.  In  the  tal^ula- 
tions  that  are  to  follow  all  water  tolls  have  been  reduced  to  an  acre  basis. 

Duty  of  water — The  amount  of  water  used  is  a  factor  entering  into  the 
annual  cost  of  water  when  it  is  desired  to  ascertain  this  cost  on  the  acre 
or  acre-foot  basis.  The  duty  of  water  figures  given  in  this  report  repre- 
sent the  average  amount  of  water  delivered  to  the  irrigator.  In  othei- 
words,  it  is  the  amount  of  water  he  pays  for.  Generally  speaking  it  may 
be  considered  the  net  duty  of  the  system. 

Interest  on  capital  invested — The  capital  invested  by  the  land  owners, 
in  the  irrigation  system  of  a  district,  may  be  divided  into  two  parts: 
First,  the  total  amount  of  capital  raised  for  permanent  improvements  by 
assessment  since  the  district  was  organized.  These  figures  are  available 
only  for  a  few  districts,  and  will  be  disregarded  here  as  far  as  interest 
on  capital  invested  is  concerned.  Second,  the  total  amount  of  bonds 
retired  by  the  districts.  Only  a  small  percentage  of  the  districts  have 
retired  bonds,  which  in  many  cases  are  long-termed. 

For  these  reasons  the  interest  on  capital  invested  by  the  landowners  is 
a  small  factor  in  determining  the  final  cost  of  water  to  the  irrigator. 
However,  it  is  a  large  factor  in  some  of  the  other  types  of  enterprises, 
hence  it  will  be  shown  wherever  possible. 

COST  OF  WATER  UNDER   IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS. 

Description  of  Table  8 — Table  8  has  been  prepared  to  show  the  animal 
cost  of  water  to  irrigators  under  many  of  the  principal  irrigation  districts 
operating  in  the  state  in  1922. 

The  data  have  been  grouped  as  representing  northern,  central,  and 
southern  California.  The  tabulations  comprise  33  colunms.  In  addition 
to  the  cost  of  water  to  irrigators,  factors  affecting  the  cost  of  water  and 
many  other  pertinent  elements  are  shown  in  the  table.  Most  of  the 
headings  are  self  explanatory,  and  will  not  be  referred  to  further. 

Column  4,  "Year  organized"  does  not  necessarily  give  the  age  of  the 
system  or  water  rights,  because  the  district  may  have  been  organized  to 
take  over  an  existing  system  or  water  right. 

Column  6,  "Estimated  irrigable  area"  makes  allowance  for  I'oads, 
canals,  towns,  and  other  non-irrigal)le  lands. 

Colunm  17  shows  "Average  duty  of  water  at  delivery  gate"  in  acre- 
feet,  and  in  many  cases  represents  the  net  duty  of  water  for  the  system. 

Column  18,  "Total  authorizfnl  l)onded  d(>l)t  per  acre"  is  o])tain(>d  by 
dividing  the  total  amount  authorized  bonded  (l(^bt  by  the  acreage  in  the 
district.  C'ohnnn  19,  "Total  present  lionded  debt  per  acre"  is  the  result 
of  dividing  the  total  amount  of  present  bonded  indebtedness  by  tlie 
acreage  in  the  district.  Column  20,  "Total  ])onded  del)t  retired  per  acre" 
is  obtained  by  dividing  the  total  amount  of  ])()nded  debt  retired,  by  the 
acreage   in  the  district. 

Column  21,  "Usual  assessed  valuation  \)vv  acre"  is  ioi'  the  1922-1923 
tax  levy. 

Column  22,  "Interest  on  retired  bonds  per  acr(^  at  ()  p(M-  cent"  is  com- 
puted from  figui'es  shown  in  column  20. 

Column  23,  "Average  district  tax  per  new  for  the  past  2  years"  is 
obtained  by  reducing  the  tax  rate  i)er  hundred  dollars  for  1921-1922 


fHYSiCAL 
SCIENCES 
LIBRARY 


TABLE  B,  COST  OF  WATER  FOR  IRRIGATION  IN  CALIFORNIA. 
Irrigation  Districts  In  Nonhern,  Centraj,  and  Southern  Callfornis.    1922. 


NoKTKBBS  Calitohhu. 

A  ijderson-ColtoD  wood 

( ';iriuiclmcl - . 

CilrUB  Hciglite.  - 

C.-fduii       _._ 

Glcnn-l'olusa 

(JTCuaiJa -- 

Happy  Valley 

Jucintu 

Panidat --_ 

Priiiwloii-C'odum-Glvitti 

Prmr<;loii-Ci>dfini-<jlc'iiii. _.. 

Ilcj^lumalion  DuUict  No.  lUS 


Cbntml  CALirOXNU. 


Lindsay- t^lnthinun-. . 

MeiixA 

Moileslo 

(hAilsilc      


Trui.jJiilil' 

TuriiH.-!.. 

Wutcffor.J 


Btaumoiii 

luipcriul 

LiltlcI{™?kCr«k.. 

Nrn-port  Mwa 


AndcTBOD 

Sacramento. . 
I'liir  Oaks. . . 
MaryBville... 

Fair  Oaks 

Willuws 

Willoira 

Crfetiudu 

()lin<la 

Utcui 


J'anniise. .. 
I'riQcetoii . 
Princotou . . 


Alpiiugh.. 
DiDuba. . 

D>TOU 

.•relma 


hrcsiio 

.Sad  Joaquin. 
San  Joa(|uiii. 

Lindtay 

Metcoil.    ... 

Moclwto 

OubiJale 

Mantt'ca 

Terra  Bolb.. 
Trantiuillity, 

Turlock 

WaWrfonJ... 
Truey 


fiMumoiit. . . 
ElCeatio... 
LittJoRock.. 
fosla  Mo3.. 
Cfufii  Mesa.. 

I'^lmdale 

■SdD  YBidro. . 

iAM  Angela . 


Lea  Aogelus  . 


ShiutA 

tjnoramciiio 

Sacrnmcnlo 

Yuba 

Sacramento 

Ulcun,  Colusa.. 
Glenn,  Colusa.. 

Siskiyou 

Shasta 

Olenn 

Bulle- 

Glenn.  Colusa.. 
Gitnn.  Colusa. - 

CoIUBU 


Tulare 

lulare,  Fresno 

CuulraCosi4t 

Frcsiiu,  Tulare.  Kings.. 

Kiugr 

FrcBoo 


Ytveuo 

Tul&rc 

Merocti 

Stanislaus... 

Stajiislaus,  Sun  Joaquiji. 

San  Josquin 

Tulare 

Fresno _ 

Stanislaus.  Merced 

Stanislaus. 

San  Joaquin. . . 


Riverside 

Iniiwriiil 

L<»  Aueclcs.. 

Orange.- 

Uranae .. 

IiOa  Angeles.. 
Sim  Diego... 


1914 
1916 
ID20 
lillQ 
1917 
1S20 


l'J21 
1601 
lUtti 
1016 

lum 


lOlU 
1921 
1919 
1920 
1920 


18S7 
1»0'J 
1000 
1915 
1918 


S.512 

4.000 

105.000 


18.277 
11.460 
11.250 
13,661 


8.006 
130,000 
17,000 

ISO.OOO 
51,570 

2-l3.l)0[) 
2i;.500 

15.289^ 
190,000 
81.183 
74.1'40 
71.112 
12,285 
10.750 
181.490 
13,577 
11.600 


3.176 

003.840 

3.073 


5.412 

3.2WI 
84.000 


4.0M 
13.213 
11.260 

8.50D 
11.780 


50,700 


8.0GS 
130,000 

130,000 


14,500 

165.000 
75.000 
03,000 

e<,iu() 

10.08(1 
10.S50 
105.000 
10.747 

I1.7ti5 


Source  of  water  supply 


Sacramento  River ,. 

American  River 

North  Fork  Ditch  Co.. 

Vuba  River 

Nortli  Fork  Dilcb  Co.. 
Sacramento  Itiver 


Shaslji  River 

Sacramento  River.. 
Little  Butte  Creek.. 
Sacramento  River. . 
Sueramcnto  River. . 
Sacramento  River, . 


21  wells 

Kings  River , 

Old  Hiver  (San  Joaquin). . 

King*  River 

Kings  River 

Kings  River , 

Kings  River  and  weUs 


39  wells 

Merecd  Hiver 

Tuolumne  River 

Stanislaus  River 

Stanislaus  River 

WcUs  aod  streams 

King)!  and  San  JoaquJn  Riven. 

Tuolumne  River . 

TUolunme  Rivor _. 

.San  Joaquin  itiver 


Wells  and  creeks 

Colorado  River 

Little  Rock  Creek... 
Wells 


Little  Rock  Creek 

Wells 


Loe  Angeles  aqueduct. . 


LoE  Angeles  aijiieduct- . 


Heuarkb—  '  Estimated.     » Operation  and  int£rat  charges  on  irrigation  vorks. 
■171(14— facing    p.    16. 


847 
Maximum 
1.050 


1,510 
3,000 


17,273 
5,019 
9,ft43 
2,276 


21,496 
8,818 
32,185 


Maximum 
34,500 


1,800 
'l'4i6' 


200 
1,196 
1.090 


12,896 
S,4S0 
9,375 


6,283 
1,800 
1.200 
1.600 
2,200 
42,000 


2,400 
2,200 
2,412 
2.000 
5,000 


1,410 


4.400 
100,000 
0,000 
■126,000 
10,000 
215,000 
10.000 

""M7u" 
>66,0OO 
60,653 
19.290 
51,203 

4.117 
10,000 
106,000 

3,106 
10,671 


Consolidated  Canal  Co."s  water  charge     *  Acreage  lor  U.  8.  only:  150,000  additional  acres  in  Mexico.     *  Average  o(  eleven  mutual  companies'  asscssmente. 


'4  00 
■1  50 

1  70 
'0  00 

2  40 
0.90 

3  00 
'2  00 

0  50 
2  25 

1  00 
'6- 00 
'2,00 
9  00 


'1  50 
1  57 
2.10 

3.26 

1  84 
2.00 

"i.si" 

'2  50 

2  50 


3  00 
I  60 
'2  00 
•1  50 
1  33 


'I  00 
'2  00 
■3  00 
1  30 
'1.00 
'2  00 


S39  95 
20  03 
86  53 
48  44 

50  00 

34  04 


47  24 
41  86 
20  77 
43  56 
12  63 


107  92 
63  16 
51  98 
32  33 
60  96 
81  40 

24  m 

37  30 


$37  15 
28  45 

m  35 

46  63 

40  00 
21  03 


47  24 
40  49 
20  33 

43  5e 

12  63 


35  07 
3  15 

31  25 
5  67 

14  74 
8  23 
37  73 

25  80 
51  11 

32  33 
60  II 
81  40 
24  19 

36  64 
49  35 
■16  19 


r2  40  72  40 

26  50  23  18 

100  22  100  22 

H  62  74  62 


Zi 


'S60  00 
80  00 
00  00 

120  00 
80  00 
50  00 


50  00 
46  00 
130  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
150  00 

150  oil' 
75  00 
90  00 
54  25 
100  00 
100  00 
150  00 
65  00 
90  00 
100  00 


80  00 
100  00 
100  00 
400  00 


250  00 
300  00 
600  00 
250  00 
200  00 
300  00 
500  00 
200  00 


Factors  in  annual  cost  of  water 


Annual  cost  of  water 


4  70 
3  40 
2  51) 
2  56 

12  00 
9  00 
2  85 

5  40 
1  33 
1  33 


1  40 
1  27 
4  15 

4  15 
II  10 

1  56 

5  22 
3  69 

6  2.^ 
10  75 

6  00 

3  45 

4  00 

7  50 


1  80 
6  86 
II  70 
11  70 
4  04 
9  00 

'2  95 
'3  55 
'5  91 
'2  95 
'3  19 
'4  78 
'7  07 
'3  19 


Deductions, 
average  past 
two  years 


Per  acre 
for  average 

amount  used 


Rice 

General.. 
Rioe 


ri- 

1-5= 


None. , 
(2.50  p 
3.00  p 
None.. 


per  acre. .  _ 

perac.-(t  - _ 

per  acre  ((or  let  2  ac-ft,). . 
(in  19221 


6  00 
4  62 
1  42 


S5  10 
7  71 
9  60 

4  70 
9  40 
6  60 
3  40 

12  00 
9  00 
3  28 

5  40 


3  48 


per  acre. . 
per  acre. . 
per  aero. . 


S0.80  per  hr-laOO""  head)-. 

None - 

(2,50  peraorc-foot 

'.75  pcrncrc -. 

.50and  tl.OOpvrirrigatK. 

$2.00  per  acre  (gravity) 

3,50  per  QCro  (iiumpod) 

9.00  per  acre-foot 

None 

None 


484 

';ro3' 


$1(1.00  per  a' 

None 

None t. 

None - 

None 


f-[oot.. 


4  75 
2  25 
I  07 
0  44 


Alfalfa. .. 
Orchard.. 


All  (av.) . . 
Deciduous. 

Citrus 

Alfalfa. -.- 
AlKav.)  _. 
Deciduous 

Citrus 

Alfalfa.--. 


$7.00  pur  acre 

1.00pcrae^^foot  (43  17).. 

Nunc 

$1.00  per  irrigat 

.75  |ierirrig!Hi.iii 

None 

$12.00  per  acre  . 

0.014  per  100  ou.  ft 

0,014  per  lOOcu.ft 

O.OUper  lOOcu.ft 

0.014  per  lOlJcu.ft, 

0.014  per  100  cu.  ft. 

0,014  per  lOOcu.ft 

O.OMper  lOOeu.ft 

0.014  pur  lOOcu.ft. 


6  10 
6  10 
6  10 


12  00 

7  93 
0  10 

12  20 

18  3 
7  93 
6  10 

12  30 


16  70 
16  20 
4  01 

21  00 


10  15 
9  29 
17  31 
20  52 


*  Aqueduct  bonds  not  included.     '  Used  1922-23  tail  rate  and  included  aqueduct  bund  tax.    x  .AcrcAgc  unknown. 


COST  OP  WATER  TO  IKRHiATOKS. 
PT.ATE   TI. 


17 


Fig.   1.      Pumping:    plant    furnishing-    1500    culjic    fec-t    of    ■water    per    second    to 
Centra]  Canal,  Clcnn-Coluaa  Irrigation  District. 


mifiui 


Fill.   -'.     Flooiliny  a  rice  lielil  in  Sticramenlo  ValUy, 


IG 

T 
A  h 

van 
tion 

D 
aim 
or  a 
sent 
wor 
be  ( 

/ 

in  1 
Firt 
ass( 
onl; 
on 
reti 
reti 
] 
a  s 
Ho 
hei 


CO!- 

op 

SOI 

to 
m; 
he 


ta 


ca 

fe' 

di 
di 
of 
a( 
is 
a( 

t£ 

P 
o 


COST  OF   WATKIv  TO   JKIiKIATOKS. 


17 


PT.ATE  II. 


Fio.    1.      I'umping-    plant,    furnishing-    15110    cuIhc    feet    of    water    per    second    lu 
Central  Canal,  aicnii-Colusa  Irrigation  District. 


Fig.    2.     Flooding  a   rice  Tuld  in  Sacramento  Valley. 


18  DEI'Airr.MEXT  OF   ITHIJC  WOKKS. 

and  1922-1923  to  an  acre  basis  and  taking  their  average.  This  method 
was  decided  upon  because  the  expenses  of  one  year  overlap  with  the 
next  year  in  many  districts,  the  average  for  the  two  years  giving  fairer 
results.  Generallv  this  average  may  be  taken  as  referring  to  the  calendar 
year  1922. 

Column  27,  "Water  charge  per  acre  for  average  amount  used"  is 
derived  either  fi'om  Column  25  or  from  the  prockict  of  columns  17  and  26. 

Column  28,  "Bond  principal  tax  per  acre"  gives  the  average  of  bonds 
retired  per  acre  for  the  last  two  years.  Column  29,  "Permanent  improve- 
ments tax  per  acre"  shows  average  portion  of  th(^  tax  for  the  past  two 
years  that  has  gone  into  capital  improvements.  Thesc^  two  columns 
come  under  the  head  of  "Deductions  average  past  two  years"  as  both 
should  be  deducted  from  the  total  tax  per  acre  and  thus  charged  to  capital 
account  rather  than  annual  cost  of  water. 

The  last  four  columns  of  the  table  are  the  final  results  obtained  from 
calculations  based  on  the  previous  columns.  Column  30,  "Cost  of  water 
per  acre  for  average  amount  used,  exchuUng  interest  on  retired  ]:)onds" 
is  equal  to  column  23  plus  column  27  minus  columns  28  and  29.  Column 
31,  "Cost  of  water  per  acre  for  average  amount  used,  including  interest 
on  retired  bonds"  is  equal  to  column  30  plus  column  22.  Column  32, 
"Cost  of  water  per  acre  foot  for  the  average  amount  used,  excluding 
interest  on  retired  bonds"  is  equal  to  column  30  divided  by  column  17. 
Column  33,  "Cost  of  water  per  acre  foot  for  the  average  amount  used, 
including  interest  on  retired  bonds"  is  (Yjual  to  column  31  divided  by 
column  17. 

The  conditions  affecting  the  annual  cost  of  water  varv  so  much  in 
different  districts  that  there  is  no  fair  basis  of  comparison.  Some  districts 
deliver  water  to  every  10  acres,  others  to  every  160  acres,  leaving  the 
farmers  to  take  care  of  the  remaining  distribution  system.  In  some 
projects  where  gravity  water  is  depeneded  upon  without  storage,  the 
irrigator  supplements  this  supply  by  a  private  pumping  plant  to  tide 
over  a  dry  season,  and  thus  adds  to  his  regular  irrigation  district  charges. 
One  district  may  have  expensive  storage  reservoirs,  diversion  works, 
pumping  plants,  or  a  concrete  pipe  or  lined  canal  distribution  system, 
while  another  district  will  depend  entirely  on  unstored  gravity  water  with 
unlined  ditches.  Of  37  districts  listed  in  Table  8,  17  have  no  water 
tolls  and  depend  entirely  on  taxes  for  revenue,  10  have  taxes  plus  flat 
rate  per  acre  water  tolls,  and  10  have  taxes  plus  measured  rate  water 
tolls.  These  facts  further  complicate  comparisons  of  costs  on  por  acre 
or  per  acre-foot  bases.  Districts  having  a  higher  bonded  deljt  per  acre 
naturally  have  higher  interest  charges  to  })ay.  These  chai'ges  in  some 
cases  amount  to  more  tlian  the  cost  of  operation  and  maintenance. 

Many  of  the  above  facts  are  shown  in  Table  8;  the  irrigator  sliould 
».eigh  them  carefully  before  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  h(^  is  j)aying 
o   nuich  for  water  in  compai'ison  with  other  districts. 

Notwithstanchng  the  disadvantages  mentioned,  some  idea  of  the 
variation  of  the  annual  cost  of  irrigation  water  under  different  conditions 
may  be  obtained  from  sunuuaries  of  cohnnns  30  and  32,  which  give  costs 
on  the  per  acre  or  per  acic-foot  l)asis  respectively,  excluding  intei-est 
on  retired  ])on(ls.  It  is  impractical)le  to  give  summaries  of  colunms  31 
and  33,  which  include  interest  on  retired  bonds,  as  only  a  few  districts 
have  retired  bonds.     The  intcicst  on  th('S(>  is  small,  as  the  table  shows, 


COST   OK   WATKK    To    IKWICATOKS. 


1!) 


ami  would  have  V(MV  littl(>  clTcct  on  av('ia<i;<'  costs.     Tlie  data  in  Table 
8  arc  summarized  iielow. 

Duty  of  waicr — Table  9  is  a  summary  of  column  17  in  Tai)le  8  showing 
the  minimum  and  maxinuim  duty  of  water  under  irrigation  districts  in 
northern,  central,  and  southern  California  and  for  the  state  as  a  whole. 
The  number  of  districts  consid(>red  is  also  shown. 

TABLE  9     SUMMARY  OF  DUTY  OF  WATER  UNDER  IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS. 


Section  of  California 

Number 

of 
districts 

Quantity  of  water  used, 
per  acre 

Minimum, 
acre-feet 

Maximum, 
acre-feet 

Xorthern 

Central -      . 

12 

17 

8 

37 

0.50 

1.50 

.64 

.50 

9.00 
3.30 

Soutliern _   _ -   - 

3  00 

Entire  state -          --   

9.00 

The  minimum  dutj^  of  0.50  acre-foot  per  acre  as  shown  in  the  above 
summary  is  for  a  system  untler  which  deciduous  fruits  and  olives  are 
grown  almost  exclusively,  the  soil  is  retentive,  and  the  average  rainfall 
is  about  27  inches.  This  accounts  for  the  small  amount  of  water  used. 
The  maximum  duty  of  9  acre-feet  per  acre  is  found  under  a  system  which 
has  plenty  of  water  and  the  entire  crop  is  rice.  Both  of  these  examples 
are  extreme  cases. 

Annual  cost  of  irrigation  water — Table  10  is  a  summary  of  columns 
30  and  32  in  Table  8,  showing  the  minimum  and  maximum  cost  of  water 
under  irrigation  districts  in  northern,  central  and  southern  California 
and  for  the  state  as  a  whole.  The  numl^er  of  districts  considered  is  also 
shown. 


TABLE  10~SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS. 


Number 

of 

districts 

considered 

Cost  of  water  excluding  interest  on  retired  bonds 

Section  of  California 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Ma.ximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Northern . 

12 

17 

8 

37 

$3  28 

90 

4  04 

90 

$12  00 
24  69 
21  00 
24  69 

$0  37 

53 

2  66 

37 

$18  00 

Central . 

16  35 

Soutliern .   

22  19 

Entire  state..     .   .. 

22   19 

The  lowest  annual  cost  f)f  80.90  per  acre  is  for  a  system  which  depends 
upon  gravity  water  without  storage.  Most  of  the  crops  that  need  water 
after  July  15  are  irrigated  by  private  pumping  plants  and  the  cost  of 
this  irrigation  is  not  shown.  On  the  other  hand,  the  highest  cost  of 
824.09  is  under  a  district  whei-e  all  the  water  is  pumped  through  an 
average  lift  of  aijout  300  feet,  the  distribution  .system  consists  of  steel, 
redwood  and  concrete  pipe,  and  the  average  cost  of  litigation  for  the 
past  two  years  has  been  about  85.00  per  acre.  These  two  illustrations 
will  give  sonu^  idea  of  the  reasons  foi'  the  wide  variations  in  costs  per 
acre  among  the  different  districts. 

4 — .371  "I 


20 


l)p]PARTMENT  OP  I'l^BLIC  WORK8. 


Ill  many  cases  the  annual  costs  shown  on  the  acre-foot  basis  ai'c 
theoretical  only.  This  is  especially  true  where  the  costs  consist  of  assess- 
ments alone  or  assessments  and  flat  water  tolls  per  acre,  and  is  due  to 
the  fact  that  the  cost  per  aci-e-foot  is  ol)tained  l)y  dividin<j;  the  cost  per 
acre  l)y  th(>  duty  of  water.  Thus  the  maximum  cost  per  acre-foot  of 
$22.19  is  found  under  a  district  which  has  an  annual  cost  per  acre  of 
$14.20  with  a  duty  of  water  of  0.64  acre-foot.  However,  water  is  not 
alnmdant  in  this  section  and  it  would  undoubtedly  cost  $22.19  or  more 
to  develop  and  distribute  one  acre-foot  of  water.  This  district  has  a 
concrete  and  steel  pipe  distribution  system  and  pumps  50  per  cent  of 
its  water  from  50  to  150  feet.  The  minimum  cost  per  acre-foot  of  $0.37  is 
for  a  system  where  rice  is  grown  entirely  with  annual  cost  of  $3.37  per 
acre  and  a  duty  of  9  acre-feet.  Seventy  per  cent  of  the  water  was  pumped 
through  the  low  lift  of  5  feet.  Only  a  small  acreage  was  irrigated  in  1922 
and  water  was  plentiful 

Annual  cost  of  gravity  water — Table  11  is  a  summary  of  columns  30  and 
32  in  Table  8  showing  the  minimum  and  maximum  annual  cost  of  water 
under  irrigation  districts  delivering  all  gravity  water.  Figures  are 
shown  for  northern,  central,  and  southern  California  and  for  the  state 
as  a  whole. 


TABLE    11 


SUMMARY    OF   ANNUAL    COST    OF    WATER   UNDER   IRRIGATION    DISTRICTS 
DELIVERING  ALL  GRAVITY  WATER. 


Number 

of 

districts 

considered 

Cost  of  water  excluding  interest  on  retired  bonds 

Section  of  California 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

5 

8 

2 

15 

$4  70 

90 

4  04 

90 

$9  60 
5  88 
7  97 
9  60 

SO  78 

53 

2  66 

53 

S18  00 

Central                                 .      

2  45 

Southern -   -- 

3  04 

18  00 

The  higher  costs  are  generally  found  under  districts  which  have  stored 
water  or  expensive  distribution  systems,  while  the  lower  costs  as  a  rule 
are  in  districts  having  no  stored  water.  The  maximum  cost  per  acre- 
foot  of  $18.00  is  for  a  district  which  only  uses  0.50  per  acre-foot  of  watei-. 
The  cost  per  acre  is  $9.00,  hence  cost  per  acre-foot  is  high. 

The  minimum  cost  per  acre-foot  of  $0.53  as  shown  by  one  district  and 
the  minimum  cost  per  acre  of  $0.90  as  shown  l\v  another  are  for  systems 
having  no  storage.  Some  irrigators  in  both  districts  have  supplemented 
their  gravity  supply  by  privately  installed  pumping  plants. 

Annual  cost  of  pumped  water — Table  12  is  a  summary  of  columns  30 
and  32  in  Table  8  showing  the  minimum  and  maximum  annual  cost 
of  water  under  districts  dehvering  all  ])umped  wat(M'.  Figures  are  shown 
for  noi-thern,  central,  and  southern  ('alifoi'uia  and  for  the  state  as  a 
whole. 


COST  OF  WATER  TO  IRRIGATORS. 


21 


TABLE    12— SUMMARY    OF   ANNUAL   COST    OF   WATER    UNDER   IRRIGATION    DISTRICTS 

DELIVERING  ALL  PUMPED  WATER. 


Number 

of 

districts 

considered 

Cost  of  water  excluding  interest  on  retired  bonds 

Section  of  California 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Xort  horn 

3 

5 

2 

10 

$4  08 
7  35 

16  20 
4  08 

$12  00 
24  69 
21  00 
24  69 

SI  56 
3  68 
8  35 
1  56 

$6  00 

Central 

lb  35 

ISout  hern : 

10  80 

Entire  state 

l(i  35 

Of  the  districts  shown  in  Table  8,  ten  dehver  pumped  water  entirely. 
The  average  lifts  varj'  from  24  feet  to  392  feet.  The  maximum  lift  for 
part  of  the  w^ater  in  one  district  was  601  feet.  The  maximum  costs  of 
S24.69  per  acre  and  S16.3o  per  acre-foot  are  for  a  sj'stem  which  has  an 
average  lift  of  300  feet,  the  highest  lift  being  460  feet.  However,  So. 00 
of  this  S24.69  per  acre  cost  should  be  charged  to  litigation  over  pumping 
rights.  The  minimum  cost  of  S4.08  per  acre  and  $1.56  per  acre-foot  is 
for  a  district  pumping  water  from  Sacramento  River  through  a  lift  of 
24  feet. 

Cost  of  water  for  various  crops — As  was  the  case  under  public  utilities, 
it  is  difficult  to  make  accurate  comparisons  on  the  cost  of  irrigation 
water  according  to  crops  grown  because  many  districts  furnish  water  to 
more  than  one  kind  of  crop  and  very  few  keep  records  making  the  segre- 
gation possible.  However,  the  following  tables,  gi\'ing  summaries  of 
columns  30  and  32  in  Table  8,  in  a  measure  indicate  the  variations  in 
the  annual  costs  of  water  for  citrus  trees,  deciduous  trees  antl  vines, 
alfalfa,  and  rice.  Figures  are  shown  for  northern,  central  and  southern 
California  and  for  the  state  as  a  whole. 


TABLE  IB- 


SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER   IRRIGATION   DISTRICTS   IN 
NORTHERN   CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

districts 

considered 

Cost  of  water  excluding  interest  on  retired  bonds 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees 

5 

10 

6 

4 

$3  28 
3  28 
3  28 
3  37 

S9  60 
9  60 

12  00 
9  33 

$1   13 
78 
78 
37 

$5  64 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

.Alfalfa 

IS  00 
6  00 

Rice... . 

1   56 

22 


DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 


TABLE  14— SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS  IN 
CENTRAL  CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

districts 

considered 

Cost  of  water  excluding  interest  on  retired  bonds 

Croj) 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees 

3 

14 
14 

1 

$0  90 

90 

90 

3  56 

$24  69 

24  69 

9  78 

3  56 

$0  60 

53 

53 

1  n 

$16  35 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfii 

Rii-e._.    : 

16  35 
t)  23 
1    1 1 

TABLE  15— SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS  IN 
SOUTHERN  CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

districts 

considered 

Cost  of  water  excluding 

interest  on  retired  bonds 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa 

Rice 

4 
8 
5 
None 

$7  97 
4  04 
7  97 

$21  00 
21   00 
21   00 

$2  66 
2  66 
2  66 

$8  90 

22  19 

8  90 

TABLE  16— SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  IRRIGATION  DISTRICTS  IN 

CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

districts 

considered 

Cost  of  water  excluding 

nterest  on  retired  bonds 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

12 
32 
25 

5 

$0  90 

90 

90 

3  37 

$24  69 

24  69 

21   00 

9  33 

$0  60 
53 
53 
37 

$16  35 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa              -   -_- 

22   19 

8  90 

Rice                                    

1   56 

The  average  annual  cost  of  water  to  the  irrig;ator  in  the  state  as  a 
whole,  for  various  kinds  of  crops,  as  shown  by  Table  16,  indicates  that 
the  higher  costs  per-  a(;re  and  per  acre-foot  are  under  districts  where  citrus 
trees  are  grown.  Then  follow  in  order  the  costs  for  irrigating  deciduous 
trees  and  vines,  alfalfa,  and  rice.  Hence  as  would  be  expected,  districts 
having  conditions  favoi-able  for  growing  the  highin-  grade  crops  are  able 
to  stand  the  greater  costs,  necessary  in  many  cases,  to  develoii  a  tlei)end- 
able  water  supply. 

The  high  costs  of  water  per  acre  for  rice  and  alfalfa  as  shown  in  some 
of  the  tables  is  (hie  generally  to  the  larger  (luuiitity  of  watiM'  used  for 
those  crops. 


COST   Ol'   WA'I'KR   TO   JKKKIATOUS. 


23 


PLATE  III. 


Fig.    1.     A   eombinetl    power   anti    irrisaiion    canal    in    the    Sierra   Nevada  above 

Sacramento  Valley. 


i-'ii..    -.      IxMi    I  >  (Itu    .•"tiiraee   (lani    of    Modesto   and    Tiirlnelv    ]rrip:alii.n    Districts 

allowing  liydro-eleetric   plant    below. 


24  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

MUTUAL  WATER   COMPANIES. 

Nature  of  a  mutual  cornpany — Under  the  California  laws  a  mutual  wat  or 
company  is  defined  as  "any  private  corporation  or  association  organiza- 
tion organized  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  water  solely  to  its  stockholders 
or  members  at  cost."*  This  ty[)e  of  enterpi'ise  is  also  known  under  the 
name  of  cooperative  water  company.  A  mutual  company  may  be 
considered  a  special  form  of  private  company  in  which  the  stock  repre- 
sents water  rights  and  is  entirely  owned  by  those  who  are  to  be  served. 

Organization  and  financing — Mutual  water  companies  are  incorporated 
mider  the  general  law  of  the  state  regulating  the  organization  of  private 
companies.  Many  of  th(^  nmtual  companies  have  been  organized  as  part 
of  the  program  of  enterprises  engaged  in  the  sul^division  and  sale  of 
land.  Usually  the  land  companies  built  the  irrigation  systems  or  portions 
of  them  in  advance  of  settlement,  and  organized  the  mutual  companies 
on  paper.  Shares  of  stock  were  then  sold  to  settler's  together  with  the 
land.  In  most  cases  the  settlers  obtain  control  of  the  irrigation  system 
after  50  per  cent  of  the  stock  has  been  paid  for. 

Some  mutual  companies  have  been  organized  by  the  landowners 
directly,  who  worked  together  for  the  development  of  a  water  supply 
and  the  construction  of  an  irrigation  system.  In  such  cases  the  works 
usually  were  built  a  little  at  a  time  and  were  not  completed  for  several 
years,  the  period  depending  upon  how  construction  funds  were  secured. 
P^mds  have  been  raised  by  suliscriptionsto  capital,  by  direct  assessment 
of  the  capital  stock,  by  bonds,  and  by  small  loans.  In  a  few  cases  settlers 
have  cooperated  in  building  works  by  their  own  labor. 

The  affairs  of  mutual  companies  are  controlled  by  a  board  of  directors 
elected  annually  by  the  stockholders.  The  president  is  elected  by 
the  directors  from  one  of  their  own  number.  As  a  rule  the  secretary 
keeps  the  books  and  records  and  computes  and  collects  water  charges. 
A  superintendent  is  placed  in  charge  of  water  delivery,  operation,  and 
maintenance.  The  mnnber  of  zanjeros  assisting  him  in  delivering  the 
water  depends  upon  the  size  of  the  company. 

Water  stock — One  share  of  water  stock  per  acr(>  is  g(Mierally  the  amount 
issued  by  mutual  water  companies,  although  in  some  cases  as  high  as 
200  shares  per  acre  have  been  issued,  while  in  other  instances  one  share 
covers  640  acres.  The  par  and  market  values  of  stocks  likewise  are 
(H'centi'ic,  and  in  order  to  make  comparisons  between  companies  it  is 
necessary  to  reduce  values  to  an  acreage  basis.  Each  share  of  stock 
maj''  carry  with  it  a  right  to  a  certain  amount  of  water. 

Under  the  California  law  a  mutual  companyf  may,  imder  its  ])y- 
laws,  make  the  stock  ai:)purtenant  to  the  land.  However,  a  few  have 
done  this  under  the  aiticles  of  incorporation  instead.  Where  this  pro- 
vision of  the  law  is  exercised  to  the  full  extent  the  wat('i'  can  not  l)e  sold 
separately  from  the  land.  Although  the  stock  may  have  a  high  pai- 
value,  it  apparently  has  no  independent  market  value;  nevertiiel(\ss, 
such  value  does  exist  under  cover  of  the  land  piices.  A  method  sometimes 
used  to  fix  the  price  of  unsold  shai'es  of  stock  idtcv  i\\o  first  year,  by  certain 
companies  which  make  the  water  appurtenant  to  tiie  land,  is  to  re(juii-e 

♦Chapter  191  of  the  Laws  of  1017. 

fPortioiiH  of  several  pages  in  this  discussion  on  iinUunl  wutcr  (Hjiupanics  were  coiupik'd  from  oriKinal 
notoa  of  the  late  C.  E.  Tait,  Division  of  Agricultural  Engineering,  Bureau  of  Public  Roads,  U.  S.  Dept. 
of  Agriculture. 


COST   «>F   \VATi:U   TO   IKKKiATOKS 


25 


tho  siil)so(iuont  puirliaser  to  pay  tho  par  value,  plus  all  assessments  to 
date  plus  simple  interest. 

Some  companies  make  the  water  oi-  slock  appurtenant  only  to  the 
larji;e  tract  of  land  to  he  suhdivided  and  to  the  adjoining  lands,  and  allow 
traiisfers  of  shares  of  stock  between  individual  land  owners  within  this 
area  so  long  as  these  transfers  are  handled  1hrouji;h  the  company's  office. 
Under  this  plan  a  user  may  invest  in  as  many  shares  as  he  needs,  (l(>pen(l- 
ing  upon  the  crops  heing  grown. 

Other  companies  pref(>r  not.  to  make  the  stock  appurtenant  to  any 
lands.  Under  such  compani(>s  the  directors  would  not  construct  laterals 
to  reach  lands  outsi(l(>  of  the  territory  originally  intended  to  be  irrigated. 
Since  the  land  ownin-  or  stockholdei-  cannot  afford  to  carry  the  water 
very  far  at  his  own  expense,  the  result  is  about  the  same  as  that  brought 
about  by  companies  which  make  the  water  api)urtenant  to  certain  lands. 
The  advantage  of  making  the  stock  non-appuitenant  is  that  untl(>r  a 
system  where  crops  are  tliversihed,  each  re(iuiring  a  different  amount 
of  water,  the  landowner  needs  to  invest  in  only  as  many  shares  as  he 
can  get  along  with.  If  the  stock  is  appurtenant  and  the  ratio  of  shares 
to  the  acre  is  fixed,  he  must  provide  for  the  max  mum  water  requirements 
of  any  crop  that  may  be  grown,  and  if  he  has  to  pay  assessments  on  these 
shares  he  is  inclined  to  demand  all  the  water  his  shares  entitle  him  to. 

A  few  companies  which  make  the  water  appurtenant  to  the  land, 
allow  shares  to  be  rented  by  one  stockholder  to  another  for  periods  not 
exceeding  four  years.  This  limitation  is  to  safeguard  the  ownei-  of 
the  shares  against  any  claim  of  a  prescriptive  right  being  set  up  by  the 
renter  of  the  shares  by  using  the  water  five  years  or  more. 

Where  the  stock  can  be  transferred  from  one  land  owner  to  another 
separately  from  the  land,  it  acquires  a  market  value  which,  with  a  few 
exceptions,  is  higher  than  the  par  value.  This  market  value  of  shares 
is  influenced  by  the  agricultural  values  producible  by  the  use  of  the 
water,  by  the  character  of  the  water  right,  indebtedness  of  company, 
cost  of  operation,  and  other  minor  factors,  as  well  as  the  original  cost. 

FACTORS  IN    ANNUAL    COST    OF  V/ATER  UNDER  MUTUAL 

WATER  COMPANIES. 

The  principal  factors  in  the  annual  cost  of  water  considered  in  this 
report  are  annual  assessments,  water  rate,  (lut>-  of  water,  and  interest  on 
capital  stock. 

Assessments  and  water  rates — Companies  differ  to  some  extent  in  their 
finances.  Under  the  California  law  all  stock  is  assessable.  Some  com- 
panies raise  all  their  funds  by  assessments  on  capital  stock.  Under  such 
a  system  there  is  little  inducement  for  the  stockholder  to  use  water 
economically.  Where  crops  are  uniform  throughout  the  project  it  works 
fairly  well. 

The  other  extreme  is  to  meet  all  expenses  by  the  collection  of  a  water 
rate  or  chai-ge,  proportional  to  the  amount  used.  From  time  to  time 
the  charge  is  fixed  by  the  board  of  directors  in  anticipation  of  the  future 
expenses  of  the  comjiany. 

Some  companies  using  a  moic  logical  i)lan  fix  a  rate  to  water  using 
stockholders  sufficient  to  meet  the  annual  cost  of  disti-ibution,  leaving 
the  requirements  of  capital  investment  and  imi)rovements  to  the  system 
to  l)e  taken  care  of  by  assessment  on  all  the  stock  issued.     This  method 


26  1>EI'ARTI\IKN'I'  OI'   ITI'.IJC  WORKS. 

is  not  conducive  to  either  speculation  in  ca[)ital  stock  or  extravagant 
use  of  water. 

Many  different  kinds  of  rate  schedules  are  used  by  the  companies. 
The  rates  may  be  on  a  measured  basis  of  so  nmch  per  hour-inch  per 
irrigation,  per  day-inch,  per  acre-foot,  or  per  cubic  foot;  or  on  a  flat 
rate  basis  of  so  much  per  acre  or  per  miner's  inch  per  season,  irrespective 
of  the  amount  of  water  used.  Some  companies  have  a  constant  i-ate  for 
all  water  used,  others  different  rates  for  winter'  and  sunnuei',  others 
different  rates  for  each  month,  others  different  rates  for  day  and  night 
use,  others  have  a  rate  decreasing  as  the  amount  of  water  used  increases, 
and  others  have  a  minimum  charge. 

Mutual  water  companies  that  make  no  charges  for  water  generally 
assess  the  stock  every  year.  Companies  that  use  a  water  charge  to  meet 
their  running  expenses  may  not  assess  the  stock  every  year,  but  only 
when  some  improvements  are  to  be  made  on  their  system  or  when  pay- 
ments are  to  be  met  on  loans  or  bonds. 

However,  it  rarely  if  ever  happens  that  a  company  does  not  make  at 
least  one  assessment  in  five  years.  For  this  reason,  in  determning  the 
annual  cost  of  irrigation  water  for  this  report,  the  average  of  the  assess- 
ments for  five  years  terminating  with  1922  has  been  used  rather  than 
the  assessment  for  1922  alone. 

Where  any  part  of  the  revenues  are  applietl  on  retiring  bonds  or 
loans,  proper  deduction  should  be  made  from  the  total  annual  cost. 
This  is  not  a  proper  charge  to  annual  operating  cost  as  payments  on 
principal  belong  to  the  capital  account. 

Interest  on  capital  stock — For  purposes  of  comparison,  the  value  of 
capital  stock  for  companies  has  been  reduced  to  an  acreage  basis.  If  the 
stock  had  an  established  market  value  in  1922  this  was  taken  in  making 
the  reductions.  If  it  had  no  apparent  market  value  due  to  being  appur- 
tenant to  the  land  or  for  other  reasons,  the  original  par  value  was  used  in 
determining  the  value  per  acre.  Interest  on  this  value  of  capital  stock, 
which  represents  the  stockholder's  investment  for  water,  was  calculated 
at  6  per  cent. 

Duty  of  ivater— The  amount  of  water  used  by  the  irrigator  beconies  a 
factor  in  the  annual  cost  of  water  when  it  is  desired  to  obtaiii  this  on 
the  acre  or  the  acre-foot  basis.  I'he  duty  of  water  data  givcMi  in  this 
report  represent  the  average  amount  of  water  delivered  to  the  ii-i-igator; 
that  is,  it  is  the  amovmt  of  water  he  pays  for.  In  most  cases  this  may 
be  considered  the  net  dutA^  of  water  for  the  systiMu. 

COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  MUTUAL  WATER  COMPANIES. 

Description  of  tables  17  and  /c?— Table  17  has  l)een  prepared  showing 
the  annual  cost  of  water  to  iiiigators  und(M'  the  most  important  mutual 
wat(M-  companies  in  northern  and  central  California. 

There  are  31  cohnnns  in  the  tabulations.  In  addition  to  the  cost  of 
water  to  irrigators,  th(^  table  shows  factors  which  affect  the  cost  of 
water  and  many  other  useful  facts.  Many  of  the  column  headings  ai'c 
self  explanatorv  and  will  not  be  taken  up  in  d(>tail  her(>. 

CV)hunn  3,  '"'Year  oiganized,"  in  many  cases  will  give  some  idea  ol 
th(>  ag(^  of  water  rights  or  syst(Mn ;  but  this  is  not  a  fixed  rule. 

Column  19,  "Value  of  stock  i)er  acre"  is  obtained  by  nniltiplymg 
colunm   17,  "Market  value  of  stock  per  share"  by  column   IS.  ".\v(M-age 


27 


PHYSICAL 
SCIENCES 
LIBRARY 


TABLE  17— COST  OF  WATER  FOR  IRRIGATION  IN  CALIFORNIA, 
IVIulual  Water  Companies  in  Northern  and  Central  California.    1922. 


RxiUEKS  — '  Eatimjiti'i]  cost  of  systom  per  acre.  '  Includes  Last  Chance  Water  Ditoh  Co.  stock.  •  Includra  Peoples  Dilch  Co.  stock.  •  Includes  L^t  Chance  Water  Ditch  Co.  asseas- 
meriM,  ^  laclu'les  Peojjira  Ditch  Co.  aaseasments.  *  Cii  liasis  of  ]  miner's  inch  for  5  acres,  '  25  cents  for  first  additJoDuJ  acre-fool,  •  50  minor's  inches  equals  1  second-foot.  '  40  miner's 
inches  cquale  1  eecund-Joot.    x  Acreage  unknown.    *  Efitimatcd. 


'KYSICAL 
SCIENCEo 
LiSRARY 


2 
Location 

- 

— 

i 

Source  of  water  supply 

0 

f 

6 

1 

2. 

1 
■a 

I 

Area  irrigated 

Capital  stock 

Factors  Ml  annual  cost  of  water 

A 

nual  cost  of  water 

9 

i 

10 

14 

B 

in 
III 

Hi 

IS 

z 

i'i 

ir 

16 

! 

i 

s. 
a 

1 

17 

s 

II 

;  s 

i  r 

18 

> 

;  i 

if 

■    2. 

i  I 

< 

g 

2, 

§ 

1 

20 

il 
II" 

si 
l¥ 

1^ 

rE 

21 

1 

Water  rate 

24 
if 

if 

h 

25 

> 

1.11 
IP 

To  0 

:  \^ 
;  S5- 

Per  acre 
for  first 

acre-foot 

Per  acre  for 

average 
amount  used 

Per  acre-foot 
for  average 
amount  used 

t 

Name  of  conipiiiiy 

3 

L 

7 

n 
r 

8 
If 

= 

S 

1 

i 

12 

I 

13 

22                                  23 

i 

1 

Schedule                          ; 

26 

ll 

i  s 

27             28 

i.l     l.| 

P     If 

t     It 

29 

ll 

:  § 
;  1 

30 

sl 

It 

II 

;  i 
;  i 

'.  f 

:  2, 

31 

1.1 

i 

r 

2, 

Butte  Glcnu  Mutual  Vi     ■  ■  ' 
Built UlL'nnMulu:il  '^  ■'■ '  ' 

Durham  atati-  Laud  ::'.i::Lhr.  l'  _ . 

Dodgebnd.... 

IS20 

8 

100 

12 

3 

180 

195 

5.60 
1.06    .. 

2,174 

S7  00 

1  000 

S7  00 

to  42 

0  42 
3  00 
2  70 

1  38 

1  92 

2  82 
1  20 
0  00 
0  06 
0  06 

3  00 
0  56 

10  25 
0  25 

0  10 

1  00 
1  50 

0  50 

1  00 
0  60 
3  30 
0  00 
0  00 

0  00 

0  08 

1  76 

3  50 

4  95 

2  98 
0  79 
0  83 
'0  96 
'0  9B 
0  63 
0  00 
0  80 
0  00 
0  71 
4)  82 
•1  03 
0  24 
0  00 
4  37 
0  00 

0  45 

1  78 

0  98 

1  12 
1  1)4 

$13  00 
3  80 
1  25 
3  1.1 

so  00 

0  00 
0  00 
0  00 
0  00 
0  00 
0  00 
0  00 
3  30 
0  00 
0  00 

0  00 
0  00 

S13  25 
4  05 
1  10 
4  00 
1  50 

4  50 

5  00 
5  30 

1  75 
(I  00 

2  00 

8  07 
0  68 

3  61 
3  50 

9  99 

2  98 
0  79 
0  69 
0  79 

0  7e 

0  63 
10  00 
0  80 
7  00 
0  51 
0  62 

0  83 

3  19 
10  48 

12  61 
9  08 

13  56 

1  78 

0  98 

1  12 
1  94 

S13  67     SI3  26 
4  47         4  06 
4  10         1  35 
6  70         4  16 
2  83         I  50 

6  42        3  94 

7  82        5  00 
6  60        5  30 

1  75         1  84 

6  06        6  00 

2  06         2  00 

11  07        3  47 
1  24        0  68 

3  91 

4  40        3  50 

12  99       20  07 

3  28        2  98 
1  09        0  79 
0  83        0  66 

0  96        0  7» 

1  05        0  70 
1  08        0  63 

12  10       10  00 
1  40         0  80 

7  60         7  00 

0  92         0  61 

1  07         0  62 

1  32         0  83 

4  27          3  69 
10  48 

15  81        33  17 
12  08         4  18 
19  56        ^  35 

2  23          1  78 
1  82        0  08 
1  72         1  12 

3  24          1  94 

$13  67 
4  47 

4  35 

6  85 
2  86 

5  86 

7  82 

6  50 

1  84 
6  06 

2  06 

6  47 
1  24 

J2  37 
3  82 

1  08 

3  115 
0  50 

4  58 

5  00 

2  76 

0  55 

1  01 
1  8« 

8  07 
0  23 

0  88    .. 

1  75 

6  00 
0  03 
0  32 
0.30 
0  47 
0  47 
0  30 

3  33 
0  30 

4  40 
0  22 
0  27 
0  36 
3  15 

8  74    .. 
»  48 
M  00 
14  11 
0  66 
0  4B 
0  56 
0  78 

$2  44 
400 

3.80  per  acre,  general 

Durham 

Sacramento.. - 
Maryaville.... 
Sacramento. .. 
Sacramento... 
Orangevale— 

Otland 

OromllE- 

Butte  Cree£! 

0 
24 
0 
24 
24 
0 
0 
0 

0 

100 

0 

100 

100 

0 

0 

0 

200 
110 

69 
111 

3.192 

X 

1.200 
352 

X 

367 
537 

1,800 
1.607 

X 

385 
736 

3,200 
2,060 
3.000 
821 
1.383 
2,200 
15.119 
14,271 

1.25 

'50  00 
45  00 
23  00 
32  00 
47  00 
'20  00 

0  00 

1  00 

l.OOperac.-ft j 

1  00 
3  00 

3  48 

1918 
1910 
1S21 
1920 

"ifiie " 

1614 

0 

105        6,000 
•3-00        6.117 

0  80      19  280 
1.00        3.547 

10  00 
5  00 
10  00 
10  00 

1  000 
1.000 
1.000 
1  000 

S23  00 

JJatomaa  Central  Mutual  Water  Co 

Uatomas  Riveraide  Mutual  Water  Co.., 

4  00 
4  00 

3  44 

4  00 
4  80 

1  84 
6  00 

2  00 

3  47 

4.00  per  ac.-ft 

7  82 

Northfork  Ditch  Co__ 

X 

170 

Orhiiid Project,  U.S. R. 5. 

6.885 

004 

4,178 

X 

3  34     . 

1.000 
1.000 

I.r5peracre;3ac.-ft.' 

6.00  per  acre,  rice _ 

0  55 

13,034 

5  S14      29,000 

1  00 

1  02 

Cestiial  Cautqrsu. 
Carter  Water  Co... -. - 

Tchachspi 

Vigalia- 

DolhL -. 

Visaha 

Edison 

ja22 

1874 
1920 
1854 

I'JOO 

Wells 

70 

0 

30 

0 

120 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 

0 

00 

0 

0 

0 

75 

108-299 

198 

100 

135 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 
0 
50 
0 

100 
0 
0 
0 

a 

•  0 

0 

100 

0 

100 

0 

0 

0 

12 

100 

100 

100 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

140 

4,400 

700 

X 

141 
100 

X 
X 

530 

800 

6.160 

394 

84 

1,SU0 

X 

40 
8 
ICO 
400 
940 
124 

a  ma 

140 

15,000 

2,150 

800 

396 

630 

19.800 

30.000 

530 

3.200 

52,300 

394 

3,800 

14.500 

50.000 

1,000 

7.300 

3.000 

2.800 

300 

160 

400 

3.300 

1.873 

3,000 

0.43 
•3.00 
4  00 

140 
97 

>50  00 
9  38 

Ikkta 

8  07 

15  06 

4,100 
1,200 

X 

6,600 
250 

X 

100  00 

1,500  00 

1/160 

0  41 

'lurloek  Ircigatjou  Diatrict... 
Kawcah  River...  . 

(Districl  t4ix»2.15) 

X 

'2,00          992 
3,00          385 
•3  20            84 
•2  50      20,197 
I  68             45 

100  00 

so  00 

it}  00 

1  00 

1.000  00 

15  00 

1  000 
1,000 
0  100 
1.000 
1/640 

15  00 
SO  00 
6  00 

6  00 
2  81 
•■2  81 
■4  37 

7  50 
35  00 
10  00 
10  00 

0  87 
•7  50 
>S  12 
18  00 

0  00 

3  00 
0  30 
0  30 
0  17 
0  17 
0  26 
0  46 

2  10 
0  60 
0  60 
0  41 
0  45 

0  49 

1  08 
0  00 

3  00 
3  00 

6  no 

0  45 
0  84 

0  60 

1  30 

None 

0  00 
V  00 
0  00 
0  00 
0  17 
0  17 
0  17 
0  00 
0  00 
0  00 
0  00 
0  20 
0  20 
0  20 
0  00 
0  00 
0  00 

n  00 
000 
0  00 
0  00 
0  00 
0  00 

4  40 
23  07 

3  28 
1  09 
0  83 

0  96 

1  05 
1  08 

12  10 
1  40 
7  60 

0  92 

1  07 

1  32 

4  77 

"'36'l7' 
7  18 
12  36 

2  23 
1  82 
1  72 

3  24 

2  20 

Wells 

255 

15.00  per  1 .440  hour  inches  •. . . 
None       ...  

5  04 

15  12 

7  69 

300 

X 
X 

230 

50  00 

6  00 

1,800  00 

Lakceiae  Ditcb -  

Hanford 

Hanf  ord 

Hatjforil 

Haiiionl 

Umoore 

Baketefield. .. 

Visalia. 

Patterson 

1873 
1873 
lyil 

188:1 
1SI02 
I'JSO 
18(^1 

X 
X 

X 

None 

0  49 

0  67 

Last  Chance  Ditch 

24,800 

7,600 

]  63 

Nonr                                          

0  63 

13,440 

2  10             53 

3  OO          394 
•2  70            100 

1.57      14.500 
2  30        mi 
2  30        72'-a 
2  30             92 
117        3.6O0 
1  20 

2,000  00 
1  00 
100  00 
10  00 
1.000  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 

4  800  00 
35  00 
400  00 

1/OM 
1  000 

0  025 

1  000 
I/&40 
1/160 
1/80 
1,200 

None.. 

"io'oo' 

LwiloMittuul  WaierCo.  No.  9..   . 

Wclls_._ 

St.  Johns  River 

San  .Icmquin  Itivcr 

4  03 

2.OO0 
13,000 

X 

1.516 

0  52 

PaUenwji  Wati-r  Ca 

7  00 

4  84 

Hanford 

Hanford 

Hanford. 

Porterville  ._. 
Kings  City. 
Ediaon. .     ... 
Tehaehajn  ... 
Telianh.ipj..._ 

VisaUa 

Visaha 

VisaUo 

Visaliu ,  , 

1873 
1S85 
18',H 

tsss 
mis 
limy 

1914 

191] 
1874 
I'Jfn 
1853 
1872 

* 

4,400  00 

New  Deal  Ditch  Co 

Peoples  Ditch...  . 

None 

0  47 

i'eorilbi  Dilch 

100  00 
15  00 

0  57 

Tule  River  and  Wells. 

WuUs. 

X 

(Beans) 
2,700 

2  05 

.  3  46 
10  48 

28  80 

4  18 

5  90 

408 

Salinas  Land  Co. 

Second EdjstmWeU  Co.. _ 

WcJIa 

292 

3  43 
0  46 
0  45 
•2  70 
•2  00 
•2  00 
•2  50 

276 
160 
766 
321 
700 
tilO 
91 

so  00 
"iob'oo" 

100  00 

10  00 

100  00 

1,000  00 

"5606" 

100  00 

75  00 

40  00 

50  00 

1.800  00 

1  000 
1  000 
1  000 
0  100 
0  350 
0  200 
0  012 

50  00 
50  00 
100  00 
7  50 
14  00 
10  00 
21  00 

24.50  per  1.440  hour  inches'.. - 

24 

)08 

11 

10  33 

W£ll8 

15  61 

Wdla. 

Kawciih  River 

St.  Johus  River 

Kawcah  River     , 

0.65  per  30  inch-huura 1 

None     ■ 

Tulare  Irngalion  C-o _ 

1.600 
I.H8 

X 

900 

2.610 

0  83 

Vplull  Ditch  Co --.- 

I 

0  91 

Walaon  Ditch  Co 

0  86 

Wmchumna  Water  Co - 

Kawcah  River 

1  30 

■ 

37104 — facing     p. 


i  <,  icT  .  n.'   \.v.v'ri.'T?   'I'll   ii^ww;  vroKs; 


27 


26 

is  not  c 
use  of  w 

Mail}' 
The  rat 
irrigatio 
rate  })as 
of  the  ai 
all  wate 
different 
use,  oth 
and  oth( 

Mutu 
assess  tl 
their  ru 
when  so 
ments  a 

Howe 
least  on' 
annual  ( 
ments  f( 
the  asse; 

Wher< 
loans,  p 
This  is 
principa 

Intere 
capital  g 
stock  ha 
the  redu 
tenant  t 
determii 
which  r( 
at  6  per 

Duty 
factor  ii 
the  acre 
report  n 
that  is, 
be  consi 


De.scr, 
the  anm 
wat(M'  c( 

There 
wat(M-  t' 
water  a: 
self  expl 

Cohu. 
the  age 

C'oliiii 
coluinii 


/ 11  iv^'i'  1  kP   wA'1'i.'w   'I'll   I  i^wK!  \'i"i  >ws; 


27 


TABLE  16.— COST  OF  WATER  FOR  IRRIGATION  IN  CALIFORNIA. 
MuluBl  Waler  Companies  In  Southern  Calirornla.    1922. 




2 
Locution 

3 

? 

f 

1 

4 
Source  of  water  supply 

5 

r 
r 

6 

1 

Area  irrignled 

12 

l1 

Capital  stock 

Factors 

in  annual  coet  of  water 

Annual  coat  ol  water 

—  -  — 

7 
o 

1 
1 
P 

8 

s 

9 

10 

s 

I 

r 
1 

1 

1 

13 

1 

1 
S 
1 

i. 

14 

? 

1 
2, 

f 

1 

15 

a 

I 

1 

1 

16 

ii 

ll 

■a 

17 

% 

2, 
1 

18 

It 
|s 

S.S 
ft 

19 

if 

n 

Water  rate 

22 

h 

h 

i  ? 

For  first 
acre-foot 

Per  acre 
for  average 
amount  used 

Per  acre-tcet 
for  average 
amount  used 

1 

Name  of  company 

20 

1 

21 

1 

23 

:i 

:  SB 

24 

tf 

;  S 

;  r 

;  a. 

25 

ll 
If 

ri 
■•  % 

;  I 

:  g 
;  2, 

26 

1 

;  § 
;  I 
;  g 

:  a. 

27 

ll 
i  i 

I  I" 

28 
11 

:  i 

i  1 

:  a. 

29 

S 

H 

\  i 

■  s 

:  r 

;  2. 

McTUiL  Companies. 

An.tei„ 

1884 
1885 
1886 
1913 
1864 
1881 
1903 
1887 
1891 
1886 
1894 
1882 
1902 
1902 
1902 
18B7 
1892 
1905 
1905 
1907 
1886 
1887 
1887 
1910 
1910 
1890 
1905 
1882 
1888 
1909 
1921 
1884 
1920 
IG22 
1886 
1911 
1900 
1913 
1913 
1900 
1901 
1901 
1902 
1902 
1908 
1907 
1912 
1909 
1921 
1905 
1887 
1887 
I9lti 
1912 
1900 

100 

""'io' 

8 
0 

5U0 
3.»2» 

7.500 

s 

000 
,000 

.920 
•700 
.900 
800 
,300 
.800 
,200 
443 
200 
.380 
806 
.000 
.000 
.600 
400 
835 
,200 
,000 
,600 
.500 
,800 
600 
2,000 
.200 
2.050 
2,000 
1.160 
3,820 
2,934 
6,144 
2,050 
75 
2.000 

•1  22 
•1  00 

1  37 
•1  00 

2  73 
1.67 

8.0O4    $100  00    tlOO  00 
3,700          5  00        30  00 

11,891      15  00    100  no 

14,000        15  00*     15  00 

3,245       50  00      200  00 

630       33  00      200  00 

1  00    $100  00 
1 .00        30  00 
3  00      300  00 
10  00      150  00 
1.10      220  00 
0  80      160  00 

16  00 
1  80 

IS  00 
9  00 

13  20 
9  60 

85  ao  J  0120 

2  50      .0055 

3  60      ,00487 
None      .0041 
10  18        None 

7  52        None 

»7  26 

3  33 

2  95 
2  50 
None 
None 

$8  86 

3  33 

4  04 
2  50 

None 
None 

$1  25 

0  10 

1  00 
None 

0  69 

2  00 

Ill  61 

5  73 

6  55 
2  50 
9  49 
5  52 

$17  61 

7  53 

23  56 
U  50 
22  69 
15  12 

$13  21 

6  73 
6  64 
2  50 
9  49 
5  52 

$19  21 
7  53 
24  64 
11  50 
22  69 
15  12 

$10  83 
5  73 
4  85 

2  50 

3  47 
3  30 

Arroyo  Dilcb  and  Water  Co. - 

Downey 

Rio  Hondo _ 

4 

7  53 

.Uusa  Irrigating  Co. 

White  Water  River    

•700 

2,800 

200 

11 50 

2 

s  31 

San  Gabriel  River 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 

100 

0 

0 

100 

100 

100 

0 

19 

100 

100 

100 

6" 

0 

14 

0 

19 

73 

100 

100 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 

100 

10 

0 

70 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

40 

100 

26 

500 

100 

14 

9  03 

Redlandfl 

1,800 
1.200 

443 

200 
1.380 

806 

2,000 

3,000 

2,500 

50 

325 
SO 
3,825 
4,500 
2,500 
1.800 
40 

X 

1.200 

1,600 

800 

900 

3.820 

1144 

0.144 

2,050 

75 

600 

2.00 
2.00 
2,00 

1  89 

2  11 
2.00 
1-60 
1,«0 
1  34 

■2  00 
1  20 
0.56 
1  81 
1.56 

1  42 

2  33 

0  30 
0.53 

1  20 
•1,00 

1.26 

1  79 
•2  08 

2  08 
2.76 

1  18 

2  39 
1  08 

3,321 

1,411 

443 

196 

1,500 

806 

8.005 

5,005 

17,280 

421 

3,498 

983 

5.197 

10,000 

4,359 

22,600 

2,500 

20,000 

1,259 

222,450 

2,300 

2.088 

:f,999 

4.000 

12.288 

5.040 

300 

24,600 

100  00 

100  00 

100  00 

100  00 

100  00 

100  00 

50  00 

50  00 

10  00 

100  00 

10  00 

100  00 

50  00 

50  00 

100  00 

10  00 

10  00 

50  00 

10  00 

1  00 

100  00 

100  00 

100  00 

100  00 

60  00 

100  00 

100  00 

10  00 

250  00 
225  00 
150  00 

ioo  66 

125  00 

120  00 
180  00 
15  00 
100  00 

"16666" 

260  00 
100  00 
140  00 
20  00 
17  50 
50  00 
500  00 
2  00 
400  00 

'266"66" 

76  00 
160  00 
90  00 

'"'366' 

1  00 
1  00 
1  00 
1  00 
1  09 
1  00 
1,50 
1  50 
7  00 
1  00 
4  00 
1  00 
1  00 

3  00 
1  25 

12  55 
1  00 
1.00 
1  00 
150  00 
1  10 
1  00 
1  00 

1  13 
2.00 

2  30 

4  00 
10  00 

250  00 
225  00 
150  00 
100  00 
109  00 
125  00 
180  00 
270  00 
105  00 
100  00 
40  00 
100  00 

250  00 
300  00 
175  00 

251  00 
17  60 
50  00 

SOOOO 
300  00 
440  00 

100  00 

200  00 

S5  88 
300  00 
207  00 
400  00 

30  00 

15  00 
13  50 

9  00 

6  00 
ti  54 

7  50 
10  80 

16  20 
6  30 
6  00 

2  40 
6  00 

16  00 
18  00 
to  50 
15  06 
1  05 

3  00 
30  00 
18  00 
26  40 

6  00 
12  00 

5  15 
18  00 
12  42 
24  00 

1  80 

5  80 

12  00 
8  50 

13  50 
7  10 

16  00 

15  90 
24  00 

0  70 

2  60 
10  48 
None 

4  50 

16  60 

17  87 
22  60 

0  90 

'"'6"66" 

7  75 

3  50 
None 
10  40 

6  16 
None 
25  30 
None 
20  00 

1  80 

2  32 

4  50 
2  07 
2  20 
2  54 

2  59 

3  91 

2  49 

3  53 

4  50 
4  26 
4  00 

■"'406' 

I  90 

8  00 
None 

4  60 

12  00 

4  00 
1  10 

13  00 

1  50 

5  25 
None 

5  00 
None 

3  20 
11  00 

2  60 

1  65 

II  60 
7  20 

13  00 
None 
0  70 

6  50 
27  60 

7  20 

3  50 

2  41 
■i  40 

24  90 
11  40 

None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 

,020 

,010 

.00208 
None 
None 

.025 

.0125 
None 

.0083 
None 

None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
12  10 

6  05 
1  26 

None 
None 
15  13 

7  66 
None 

5  02 
None 

None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
6  77 
10  95 
1  97 
None 
None 
4  54 

4  01 
None 

5  02 
None 

20  00 
None 

6  16 
12  00 
28  56 

21  70 
None 

0  78 

1  36 

0  71 

1  4'l 
0  98 

5  03 

2  62 

2  62 
None 
None 

■'Nrae' 
None 

3  33 

6  41 
2  78 

None 
None 
1  67 

1  56 

0  60 

4  311 

2  62 
2  W 

1  04 
6  21 

None 
6  50 

5  02 
10  64 

7  79 

12  01 

6  12 
10  97 

13  28 
21  38 

0  70 
2  50 
10  48 

12  10 

10  65 

14  43 

11  46 
19  82 
16  03 

7  56 
7  33 

11  21 
2  90 

15  70 
7  78 
7  OS 

10  96 
43  29 
9  08 

13  50 

20  02 
24  14 

16  79 
18  01 
12  66 
18  47 

24  08 
37  6S 

7  00 

8  50 
12  88 

18  10 

25  55 

32  43 
21  96 
34  88 

17  08 
10  56 
37  33 
29  21 
29  30 
21  70 

19  78 
12  23 
28  96 
55  71 

33  08 
15  30 

6  02 
10  64 

7  79 

12  01 
6  12 

10  97 

13  28 
21  38 

0  70 
2  60 

10  48 

6  77 
15  45 
15  14 

11  46 
19  82 

544 
4  01 

7  33 
11  21 

2  90 
15  70 

7  78 
10  28 
10  96 
47  65 
21  70 
13  50 

20  02 
24  14 

16  79 
18  01 
12  66 

18  47 
24  08 
37  58 

7  00 

8  50 
12  88 
12  77 
30  45 

33  14 

21  96 

34  88 

6  49 

7  01 
37  33 
29  21 
29  30 
21  70 

19  78 
15  43 
28  96 
60  07 
45  70 
15  30 

2  51 

5  32 

3  90 

6  35 
2  90 

5  49 
8  30 

13  36 

0  52 

1  25 
8  73 

12  09 

8  64 

9  70 
8  07 
8  51 

18  13 

7  56 

6  11 

11  21 

2  30 

8  77 

3  74 

4  96 
3  97 

40  39 

9  08 

12  50 

B.  V.  M.  W.  Co 

8  40 

B- V.M.W.Co 

Redlands _ 

Whittier 

Wells..                        

• 

15  06 

UHabra 

California  Domestic  Water  Co. . 

23  49 

■■■356' 

20 

1.150 

100 

5  22 

Capistrano 

Montebello 

SanJuan  Creek  

4  25 

Welia 

40 

450 


Wells _ _ 

150 
100 

Bloomington 

Wells 

25 

50 

Cucamonga 

Wells;  Tunnels 

100 

0-340 

80-320 

30-100 

90 

700 

300 

Wells 

14  97 

80 

Comptoa. 

Wells 

" 

Maj.      1 

13  23 

San  Gabriel  River      .... 

31  11 

Eficondido 

450 

1.200 

10 

29  21 

23  24 

50-100 

250 

None 
.0049 

None 
2  96 

San  Jacinto 

1.790 

7  42 

Sanla.ina  River;  Wells 

Wells 

30 
450 
265 
S2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
70 
220 

10  49 

Glendora 

.040 
.015 
None 

24  20 
9  08 
None 

Wells..  . 

1.300 

100 

14  60 

El  Centre 

Colorado  River 

Imperbl  Irrigation  District 

Imperial  rrigati on  District 

mperial    rrigation  District 

mperial   rrigation  District 

mpenal  Irrigation  District 

Imperial   rrigation  District 

Imperial  rrigation  District 

Imperial    rrigation  District 

Imperial  Irrigation  District 

Imperial  Irrigation  District 

Imperial  Irrigation  District 

We^s 

» 

X 

12,000 

X 
X 

X     12 

32.689      4 
X      2 
X      6 
X        1 
X       1 
X      3 
X       1 

X 

X       1 
300 

1.169 

6.000 

6.000 

0.000 

0.000 

9.000 

8,260 

5,000 

8,000 

5.000 

8.000 

2,000 

600 

850 

2.80O 

3.200 

750 

««8 

1.200 

960 

792 

500 

1.80O 

9.134 

365 

974 

8.058 

800 

5,000 

500 

7,428 

2,200 

628 

500 

1.480 

1,362 

1,400 

4,682 

1,575 

350 

781 

2.000 

2.600 

2.000 

3,00 

3  00 
•3  00 

3  00 
•3  30 

3  00 
■3  00 

2  80 

3  00 
'3.00 

3  00 
1.35 
•1,63 

0  80 

1  20 

2  70 
2  40 
11  89 
0  92 
1.09 

0  95 

1  70 
•2  20 
'4,30 

3.60 

1  66 

2  67 
2  TO 
2  30 
I  22 
1.69 

1  38 
1.16 

2  08 
2  50 

'1  70 
0.85 
1.65 
1.61 
2  00 
2  78 

0  77 

1  14 
1  lb 

9<l,069 

7,218 

49,624 

iy,801 

80,841 

1B.984 

17,152 

4:1.000 

•19,000 

15,400 

•18.500 

2,000 

1,187 

2.190 

3.150 

3,238 

2,050 

980 

1,250 

1 ,000 

792 

.^85 

4.X(H) 

41,449 

2.000 

974 

19.L*71 

8,224 

6,0<Vt 

1.231 

17.428 

2,200 

528 

1,1)00 

2,910 

13,525 

1,400 

8.606 

1,500 

360 

781 

2,500 

2,760 

3.500 

10  00 
10  00 
10  00 
10  00 
10  00 
10  00 
10  00 
25  00 
10  00 
25  00 
10  00 
50  00 
100  00 
25  00 
100  00 
50  00 
25  00 
50  00 
100  00 
10  00 
100  00 
50  00 
100  00 
10  00 
10  00 
25  00 
10  00 
5  00 
100  00 
50  00 
5  00 
100  00 
40  00 
100  00 
10  00 
1  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
50  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 

25  00 
20  00 
20  00 
15  00 
12  50 
12  50 
12  50 
20  00 
20  00 
25  00 
20  00 
SO  00 
133  00 
25  00 
140  00 
225  00 

"i66"66' 

'166' 66' 
100  00 
185  00 
120  00 
35  00 
HI  00 

"75  "06 
5  00 

350  00 
57  25 
134  49 

200  00 
40  00 
IOO  00 

29  50 

■i25"66 

117  50 

300  00 
100  00 

'266' 66 
75  00 

125  00 

0  80 
1,00 

0  94 

1  00 
0  94 
0  94 
0  94 
0  94 

0  94 

1  00 
1  00 

1  00 

2  00 
1  CO 
1  12 
1  00 

3  00 
1  00 
1  00 
1.00 
1  00 

1  00 

2  50 
1.00 

""*'i  66 
2  no 
8  00 

1  21 

2  00 
1  00 
1  00 

1  00 

2  00 

2  (K) 
10  00 
I  00 
1  84 
1  00 
1  00 
1  00 
1  00 
1  00 
1  00 

20  00 
20  00 
18  80 
15  00 
-11  75 
11  75 
U  75 
18  80 
IS  80 
25  00 
20  00 
50  00 
266  00 
40  00 
156  80 
225  00 
75  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
185  00 
300  00 
35  00 
10  00 
25  00 
150  00 
40  00 
423  50 
114  50 
134  49 
200  00 
40  00 
200  00 
59  00 
10  00 
125  00 
216  20 
300  00 
100  00 
50  00 
200  00 
75  00 
125  00 

1  20 

1  20 
1  13 

oyo 

U  70 
0  70 

0  70 

1  13 
1  13 
1  50 

1  20 

3  00 
15  % 

2  40 
9  40 

13  SO 

4  50 
6  00 
6  00 
6  00 
6  00 

11  10 
IS  00 

2  10 

0  60 

1  60 
9  00 

2  40 
25  41 

6  87 
8  07 

12  00 

2  40 
12  00 

3  54 
0  60 

7  SO 
12  97 
18  00 

6  00 

3  00 
12  00 

4  50 

7  50 

,00165 
,00165 
.00140 
00165 
.00140 
.00165 
.00165 
,00140 
None 
.00165 
.00165 
.0125 
.0300 
,06035 
None 
None 
0147 
.0125 
None 
.018 
.0104 
None 
None 
None 

i  66 
1  00 

0  85 

1  00 

0  85 

1  00 
1  00 

0  85 
None 

1  00 
1  00 

7  56 
18  15 
36  51 
None 
None 

8  89 
7  56 

None 
10  89 
6  29 
None 
None 
None 

3  00 
3  00 

2  55 

3  00 

2  81 

3  00 
3  00 

.    2  38 
None 
3  00 

3  00 

10  21 
29  58 
29  21 
None 
None 
12  45 

6  73 
None 

11  87 

n'oS 
None 
None 

8  40 
None 

8  00 
None 

None 
24  40 

4  90 
17  87 

12  53 
None 

5  00 
0  77 
8  63 
None 

6  09 
None 
37  84 
15  14 
None 

8  77 

None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
2  50 

0  31 

1  42 
None 
None 

4  00 
None 
None 
None 

'Noii" 
None 
None 
None 

2  00 
None 

1  65 

1  36 
7  20 

2  40 
None 
None 

1  18 
«  77 

1  60 
None 

2  05 
None 

3  86 
2  08 

5  12 
7  30 

4  72 

5  00 
5  19 

5  39 
9  71 

6  11 
5  33 

7  30 
7  06 

9  06 
18  15 
40  51 

1  90 
7  69 
7  47 
12  16 

12  00 
10  89 

7  39 

13  IKl 

1  50 
5  25 

8  40 
5  00 

8  00 
3  20 

9  00 

22  50 

2  90 

23  19 

10  80 
10  60 

2  00 
1  16 

14  47 
20  83 

9  38 

3  80 
14  05 
22  06 
20  96 
16  88 

6  32 
S  50 

5  85 

6  90 

5  89 

6  09 

7  41 
6  24 

6  46 

5  80 

8  26 

12  06 
34  11 
42  91 
11  30 

21  19 
11  97 
18  16 

18  00 

16  89 

13  39 
24  10 

19  50 

7  35 

9  00 

6  50 

17  00 
5  60 

34  41 
29  37 
10  97 

35  19 
13  20 

22  60 
5  54 
1  75 

21  97 

33  80 
27  38 

9  50 
17  05 

34  06 
25  45 
24  38 

7  12 
9  30 

6  42 

7  00 
7  15 

7  39 

8  71 

6  64 
5  33 

9  30 

9  06 
11  71 
29  58 
33  21 

1  90 

7  69 
11  03 

11  33 

12  00 

11  87 

7  08 

13  00 
1  50 

5  26 

8  40 

6  00 

8  00 

3  20 

9  00 
26  90 

4  90 
2S  11 

12  63 

10  60 

5  00 
I  47 

12  95 
20  83 

11  69 
3  50 

38  2S 

17  54 
20  95 

18  09 

8  32 
10  50 
7  55 
7  90 

7  85 

8  09 

9  41 
7  77 

6  46 
10  80 

10  26 

14  71 
46  54 
35  61 

11  30 

21  19 

15  53 

17  33 

18  00 
17  87 

13  08 

24  10 

19  50 

7  35 
9  00 
6  60 

17  00 
5  60 
34  41 
33  77 

12  97 

40  11 

14  93 

22  60 

8  54 
2  07 

20  45 
33  80 
29  09 

9  50 

41  28 
29  54 

25  45 
25  59 

2  37 

3  10 
2  14 
2  33 
2  17 
2  46 
2  90 

2  37 
1  7S 

3  10 
3  02 
8  68 

18  15 
41  61 

1  58 

2  85 
7  88 

12  73 

13  05 
10  89 

7  46 
7  65 

0  63 

1  22 

2  33 

3  01 
3  00 

1  19 
3  91 

22  03 

2  90 
20  38 
10  80 

5  10 
2  00 

0  86 
15  24 

12  63 
7  26 

1  76 

13  77 
22  78 
18  38 
15  60 

mperiul  Water  Co  No  2 

Holtvilie 

CaBpatria 

155 

ISO 

2  52 

2  63 

Holtvilie 

2  38 

mpenal  Waler  Co.  No.  9 

Catipatria 

2  16 

-a  Puente  Cooperative  Water  Co 

WestCovina 

U  Verne      .     ... 

"■■'om' 

2.750 
3.000 

'"""246' 

1.000 

500 

240 

500 
1,800 

1,700 

10  89 

A  Verne  Water  Aasociation 

Wells 

27  94 

«mon  Grove  Mutual  Water  Co. 

Lemon  Grove 

X 

Lugonia  Water  Co, 

50 

Lytle  Oeek  Water  and  Improvemenl  Co. 

Rialto 

Lytle  Creek;  Wells 

60 

go 
no 
so 

250 

200 
6S5 

428 
200 
50 
552 

7  85 

Mooeta  Water  Co. 

Cardena 

Welle 

50 
300 

46 

11  09 

Montalvi)  Mutual  Water  Co 

Wells 

19  47 

Monlebello  Land  and  Water  Co 

MontebcUo 

Monte  VisU  Irrigation  Co 

Wells 

400 

Mound  Water  Co 

1904 
,1908 
1885 
1908 
1887 
1913 
1885 
1869 
1882 
1913 
1877 
18E4 
1902 
1899 
1887 
1902 
1895 
18S7 
1893 
1892 
1906 
1913 
1900 
1910 

Mutual  Land  and  Water  Co 

60 

North  Fork  Water  Co 

San  Bernardino... 
BIythe 

Palo  Verde  Mutual  Water  Co, 

6.726 
20 

3,720 
300 

22.409 

2.255 
500 

Piru  Water  Co 

Piru 

Piru  Creek. 

335 

150 

1,733 

'     "66i 
360 

2  50 

lincon  Ditch  Co. 

None 

None 

Rivereidc  Water  Co 

6  37 

San  Antonio  Irrigation  Co 

Downey. 

None 
None 
.03306 

0048 
0214 
.0178 

None 
0033 
00075 
.0168 

None 
00825 

None 
0225 
0325 

None 
.0125 

None 
None 
20  00 
2  90 

12  95 
10  80 
None 

2  00 
0  45 

10  15 
None 

3  78 
None 

13  61 
19  66 
None 

7  59 

2  07 

San  Antonio  Water  Co 

180 
300 
75 
200-360 
166 

5,000 
400 

2,200 

U  96 

San  Cayetano  Mutual  Water  Co. 

Santa  Paula 

100 
X 

7  68 

Son  Dmiaa  Water  Co. 

SanDimas 

Saticoy 

52s 

12  87 

South  Mountain  Water  Co., 

Redlands. _ 

50 
38 
0 

100 
50 
87 
38 
100 
100 
100 
00 

500 
1,300 

000 
1,400 
4.082 
1,275 

"'2.606 
2,500 

10  86 

Slandefer  Water  Co 

Sunny  Slope  \\'atcr  Co 

Temescal  Water  Co 

Fillmore 

Rivera _.__ 

Lamnnda  Park... 

SanU  Clara  River:  Weib 

San  Gabriel  River 

Wells 

28 

"'"'i53 
85 

160 
452 

3  42 

1  22 
24  06 

San  Jacinto  River;  Wells 

SanU  Paula  Creek;  Wells 

Trabueo  Water  Co 

,    SantaPaula 

.    Capistrano 

.    Monrovia 

.    North  Whittier.. 

.   Yorba  Linda 

-    Yucaipa 

300 
350 

18  45 

40 

80 

174-418 

302 

.         260 

Walnut  Grove  Mutual  Water  Co 

WelU               

X 

X 

14  85 

Whittier  Extension  Mutual  Water  Co. 

Wells 

38  37 

Yucaipa  Waler  Co.  No.  1... ".";;!' ;^;;;;;;;;;;;; 

Wolls....                

22  32 

Wells;  Tunnels 

2.000 

22  03 

•Bslimnfed. 
"71114— facing 


X Acreage  unknown. 


(a)  Companies  absorbed  by  district  lale  in  1922. 


COST  OF   WATKR  To   IHHHiATORS. 


27 


PLATE  IV. 


Fig.   1.     A  t.vpical  small  irrigation  pumping  plant  in  Santa  Clara  Valley. 


l-'iu.    Z.      I'lUTou    irnyalMHi  ol    a  clu-rr.v  urchard   m  Santa  Clara    \  allt-'y. 
5—37104 


26 

is  not  c( 
use  of  wi 

Many 
The  rat( 
irrigatioi 
rate  basi 
of  the  ar 
all  watei 
different 
use,  oth( 
and  othe 

Mutuj 
assess  th 
their  rui 
when  SO) 
ments  ai 

Howe^ 
least  one 
annual  c 
ments  ft 
the  assee 

Where 
loans,  p 
This  is 
principa' 

Interei 
capital  s 
stock  ha 
the  redui 
tenant  ti 
determii 
which  re 
at  6  per 

D}d!/  , 
factor  ii 
the  acre 
report  r( 
that  is, 
be  con  si 


Descn 
the  anni 
water  c( 

There 
water  t( 
water  ai 
self  expl 

(V)lun 
the  age  > 

Coluii 
column 


COST  OF  WATER  TO   IHHKiATORS. 


27 


PLATE  IV. 


Fig.   1.     A  typical  small  irrigation  pumping  plant  in  Santa  Clara  Valley. 


FiCi.    -'.      l-"iirro\\    irrigalmn  ol'  a   cli'iiv    Dn-liard   m   Santa   ('laia    \  alley. 
S— :5710» 


28  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

luimljcr  shares  per  acre."  ^Vhere  market  value  is  not  obtainable  the  par 
value  is  used. 

Column  24,  "Water  charge  per  acre  for  the  average  amount  used"  is 
equal  to  column  22,  ''Water  rate"  where  the  water  rate  is  on  the  basis  of  a 
flat  charge  per  acre.  Where  a  measured  rate  is  used  it  is  equal  to  column 
23,  "Water  rate  per  acre-foot"  multiplied  b}-  column  14,  "Average  duty 
of  water  per  acre  at  delivery  gate." 

The  last  six  columns  of  the  table  are  the  final  results  obtained  from 
the  previous  columns,  and  show  the  annual  cost  of  water.     Columns  26, 

28  and  30  exclude  interest  on  value  of  capital  stock  while  columns  2?' 

29  and  31  include  the  interest. 

Columns  26  and  27  showing  the  "Annual  cost  of  water  per  acre  for 
first  acre-foot"  were  included  in  the  table  mainly  for  comparison  pur- 
poses; they  show  what  the  cost  would  be  if  the  irrigator  only  used  one 
aere-foot  instead  of  the  average  amount  used  by  the  system.  Hence 
where  the  charge  is  on  the  per-acre  basis  an  irrigator  using  one  acre-foot 
pa^'s  just  as  much  as  the  irrigator  who  uses  three  acre-feet.  On  the  other 
hand,  if  the  water  charge  is  on  a  measured  basis  the  water  user  pays 
according  to  the  amount  used.  Column  26  is  equal  to  colunm  21  plus 
colunm  24,  minus  column  25,  if  the  flat  rate  per  acre  is  the  basis  of  the 
water  charges.  Wlien  the  measured  rate  is  used  column  26  is  equal  to 
column  21  plus  column  23  minus  column  25.  Column  27  is  equal  to 
column  26  plus  colunm  20. 

Columns  28  and  29  show  the  "Cost  of  water  per  acre  for  average 
amount  used."  Column  28  is  equal  to  column  21  plus  column  24  minus 
column  25.    Column  29  is  equal  to  column  28  plus  column  20. 

Columns  30  and  31  show  the  "Cost  of  water  per  acre  foot  for  average 
amount  used."  Column  30  is  equal  to  column  28  divided  by  column  14. 
Column  31  is  equal  to  column  29  divided  by  column  14. 

Table  18,  showing  annual  cost  of  water  to  irrigators  under  principal 
nmtual  water  companies  in  southern  California,  is  similar  to  Talkie  17 
except  that,  there  being  fewer  column  headings,  they  are  numbered 
differently. 

As  was  the  case  with  irrigation  districts,  the  many  variable  conditions 
which  affect  the  annual  cost  of  water  under  different  mutual  companies 
make  fair  comparisons  difficult. 

The  method  used  in  arriving  at  the  cost  of  water  under  mutual  water 
companies  has  been  to  take  into  account  the  assessment  on  the  capital 
stock,  the  charge  for  water  delivered,  and  the  interest  on  capital  stock. 
The  entire  cost  is  included  in  these  items,  with  the  exception  of  deprecia- 
tion on  the  plant,  which  has  not  been  considered  because  it  was  not 
practical  to  include  in  this  study  the  vast  amount  of  work  necessary  fairly 
to  determine  depreciation  under  each  of  the  many  systems.  No  doubt 
in  many  cases  repairs  of  a  permanent  nature  offset  this  factoi-. 

P'rom  the  sum  of  the  above  three  items  considered  should  be  deducted 
the  amount  put  into  a  sinking  fund  to  retire  bonds  or  loans.  Interest 
paid  on  the  principal  is  jii-opei'l}^  chargeable  to  the  annual  cost  of  water, 
while  funtls  collected  to  retii-e  the  principal  of  indebtedness  are  not, 
and  should  be  charged  to  capital  account.  Many  irrigators  overlook 
the  fact  that  funds  invested  in  water  stock  would  earn  interest  if  loaned 
out,  and  that  such  interest  should  be  charged  to  th(Mr  amuial  cost  of 
iirigation  water. 


COST  (H'  W.\TER   TO  IRRIGATORS. 


29 


Of  the  itonis  thai  in:ik(>  tho  total  annual  cost  of  watci-  the  assossnionts 
and  interest  on  capital  stock  are  fixed  charges  because  they  relate  to  a 
share  of  stock  and  nuist  be  paid  whether  any  water  is  used  or  not;  but 
water  chaise  or  rate  vaiies  in  many  cases  according  to  the  amount  of 
water  us(hI  by  the  stockholders.  For  these  i(>asons  and  others,  together 
with  the  fact  that  tlu^  duty  of  water  per  acre  is  not  uniform,  the  matter 
of  fairly  comparing  the  annual  cost  of  water  under  different  nuitual 
companies  is  complex.  To  compare  the  costs  "per  acre"  is  objectionable 
where  the  duty  varies.  In  cases  where  the  cost  per  acre  is  the  summation 
of  fixed  and  variable  chai-ges  it  is  unsatisfactory  to  compare  the  costs 
"per  acre-foot,"  as  this  is  obtainined  by  dividing  the  cost  per  acre  by 
the  duty  of  water  in  acre-feet. 

Notwithstanding  the  complications  which  arise  when  comparing  the 
costs  under  difT(Ment  systems,  some  idea  may  l)e  given  as  to  the  varia- 
tions in  the  annual  cost  of  water  to  the  irrigators  throughout  the  state, 
and  under  different  conditions,  by  the  following  summaries  of  tables  17 
and  18. 

Duty  of  water — Table  19  is  a  summary  of  tables  17  and  18,  showing 
the  mininmm  and  maximum  duty  of  water  und(>r  mutual  companies  in 
northern,  central,  and  southern  California,  and  for  the  state  as  a  whole. 
The  number  of  companies  considered  is  shown  in  the  table. 

TABLE  19— SUMMARY  OF  DUTY  OF  WATER  UNDER  MUTUAL  WATER  COMPANIES. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Quantity  of  water  used 
per  acre 

Section  of  California 

Minimum, 
acre-feet 

Maximum, 
acre-feet 

Northern.    .   .   ..   .   .   .   . 

9 

26 

78 

113 

0.86 
.43 
.30 
.30 

5.94 

Central                                            .-          

4.00 

Southern                                                             - 

4  30 

Entire  state                           -   -■ 

5.94 

The  minimum  duty  of  water  of  0.86  acre-foot  per  acre  foi-  northern 
California  as  shown  in  Table  19  is  for  a  system  irrigating  deciduous 
fruits,  beans,  truck,  and  alfalfa.  All  the  water  is  pumped  from  the 
Sacramento  River  through  an  average  lift  of  24  feet.  The  minimum 
duty  of  water  for  Central  California  of  0.43  acre-foot  per  acre  is  for  an 
enterprise  growing  deciduous  fruits  entirely,  at  an  elevation  of  about 
4000  feet.  All  the  water  is  pumped  through  average  lift  of  70  feet. 
The  minimum  duty  of  water  for  southern  California  of  0.30  acre-foot  per 
acre  is  for  a  system  under  which  the  crop  is  almost  entirely  beans,  which 
receive  only  oiu*  irrigation  p(>r  season.  All  the  water  is  pumped  with 
lifts  ranging  from  1<S()  to  32()  feet. 

The  maximum  duty  of  water  of  5.94  acre-feet  per  acre  as  shown  in 
Table  19  for  northern  California  is  for  rice.  All  the  water  is  pumped 
under  this  system  at  a  lift  of  about  8  feet.  In  central  California  the 
maxinuim  duty  of  water  of  4.00  acr<>-feet  per  acre  is  for  a  new  project 
iiaving  sandy  .soil  and  a  large  acrc^ige  of  alfalfa.  Fifty  per  cent  of  the 
water  is  pumped  through  an  average  lift  of  30  feet.  The  maximum  duty  of 
water  of  4.3(3  acre-feet  ptM*  acre  for  soutiiern  California  is  found  under  a 
system  in  Palo  \Vrde  \'alley  irrigating  alfalfa  and  cotton  through  the 


30 


DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 


long  hot  and  dry  season  of  the  Colorado  Desert.    'Hiis  is  all  gravity  water 
taken  from  the  Colorado  River. 

Annual  cost  of  irrigation  w^a^er— Tal)le  20  is  a  suinniaiy  of  tables  17  and 
18,  showing  ininiinuin  and  maximum  costs  of  irrigation  water  under 
mutual  water  companies  in  northern,  central  and  southern  California 
and  for  the  state  as  a  whole.  The  numher  of  conipanic^s  consideicd  in 
obtaining  the  average  is  also  shown  in  the  table. 


TABLE  20-  SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  MUTUAL  WATER 

COMPANIES. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Annual  cost  of  water  including  interest 
on  capital  invested 

Section  of  California 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

-Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Northern _          _    _ 

9 
24 

78 
111 

$1   84 

83 

2  07 

83 

$13  67 
.3(5   17 
60  07 
60  07 

$0    .5.T 

40 

1  22 

40 

$7  82 
27  44 
.50  91 
.50  91 

Central .   ._   .   . 

Southern 

Entire  state 

The  cheapest  water  is  supplied  bj^  the  older  gravit}'  systems,  some  of 
which  were  constructed  in  the  early  fifties.  Some  are  capitalizecl  at  a  few 
dollars  per  acre,  which  does  not  represent  the  true  present  value  of  the 
water.  In  the  absence  of  proper  basis  for  interest  cliarges  the  main 
expense  under  them  consists  of  fees  paid  to  the  zanjeros,  and  in  a  few 
instances  the  farmers  do  most  of  the  work  themselves. 

The  lowest  cost  per  acre  is  for  a  system  using  1.68  acre-feet  of  water 
per  acre.  This  cost  per  acre  is  made  up  of  interest,  SO.  17,  and  an  average 
annual  assessment  of  $0.83,  from  which  is  deducted  $0.17  for  sinking 
fund,  leaving  a  total  cost  pei-  acre  of  $0.83.  The  lowest  cost  of  $0.40 
per  acre-foot  is  for  a  company  having  the  following  items  of  cost  per 
acre  for  water:  interest  $0.41  and  average  assessment  of  $0.71,  from 
which  is  deducted  $0.20  for  sinking  fund,  leaving  a  total  per  acre  cost  of 
$0.92.  This  divided  by  the  duty  of  water  of  2.30  acre-feet  per  acre 
for  the  systcMu  gives  a  cost  of  $0.40  per  acre-foot. 

For  the  entire  state,  the  highest  costs  are  fouiul  under  sj'stems  wliicli 
pump  all  their  water,  although  there  are  some  gravity  systems  in  southern 
California  that  have  higher  costs  than  many  pumping  systems. 

The  maximum  costs  of  $60.07  p.er  acre  and  .SoO.91  per  acre-foot  are 
found  under  a  system  in  southern  California  lifting  watei-  about  450 
feet  from  wells  and  having  a  duty  of  1.18  acre-feet  per  acre.  The  cost 
per  acre  is  made  up  of  the  following  items:  interest  $12.42,  average  annual 
assessment  $25.30,  and  water  charge  $28.56,  from  which  is  deducted 
$6.21  for  sinking  fund,  making  a  total  cost  of  $60.07  i)ei'  acre.  This 
cost  divided  l)y  the  duty  of  water  of  1.18  acre-feet  per  acre  gives  a  cost 
per  acre-foot  of  $50.91. 

Annual  cost  of  gravity  water — Table  21  is  a  summary  of  tables  17  and  18 
showing  minimum  and  maximum  annual  costs  of  water  under  mutual 
companies  delivering  all  gravity  water.  Figure's  are  shown  for  northern, 
central,  and  southern  Califoinia,  antl  for  the  state  as  a  whole.  They 
include  intei-est  on  value  of  capital  stock. 


COST  OK   WATKK   TO   IKRICATOKS. 


31 


TABLE  21     SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  MUTUAL  COMPANIES 

DELIVERING  ALL  GRAVITY  WATER. 


N'unibor 

of 

fonipanics 

considered 

Cost  of  water  includinK  interest  on  capital  invested 

Section  of  California 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

N  ort  horn 

5 
16 
34 
55 

$1  84 

83 

2  07 

83 

$6  50 

4  40 

33   14 

33   14 

$0  55 

40 

1  22 

40 

S3  48 

Central.   

2  20 

Son  t  horn , 

20  21 

I'.ntiro  Stat©--            -      

29  21 

Tlu'  lowest  costs  liave  already  been  analyzed  in  detail  under  "annual 
cost  of  irrigation  water."  The  highest  costs  for  gravity  water  are  found 
in  southern  California;  the  niaximuni  is  S33.12  per  acre.  This  cost  is 
mainly  du(^  to  the  fact  that  this  system  has  to  keep  up  a  pumping  plant 
for  protection  against  dry  years,  as  well  as  to  the  high  value  of  water 
rights.  However,  no  water  was  pumped  for  the  year  the  data  refers  to. 
The  items  making  up  the  annual  cost  per  acre  are  as  follows:  interest 
SIS. 00,  average  assessment  §16.50,  and  water  charge  S1.97,  from  which 
is  deducted  S3. 33  for  sinking  fund,  making  a. total  cost  of  833.14  per 
acre.  The  duty  of  water  is  1.56  acre-feet  per  acre  and  4500  acres  of 
citrus  trees  are  irrigated. 

The  highest  cost  of  829.21  per  acre-foot  is  under  a  company  bringing 
water  some  distance  from  a  storage  reservoir.  The  cost  items  per  acre 
are  as  follows:  interest  SIS. 00,  average  assessment  S7.75,  and  water  charge 
S5.02,  from  which  is  deducted  SI. 56,  making  a  total  cost  of  S29.21  per 
acre.  The  cost  per  acre-foot  of  water  is  S29.21,  the  duty  of  water  being 
1.00  per  acre-foot  per  acre. 

Annual  cost  of  pumped  water — Talile  22  is  a  summary  of  tables  17  and 
18  showing  the  minimum  and  maximum  annual  costs  of  water  under 
mutual  companies  delivering  all  pumped  water.  Figures  are  shown  for 
northern,  central,  and  southern  California,  and  for  the  state  as  a  whole. 
They  include  interest  on  value  of  capital  stock. 


TABLE  22     SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  UNDER  MUTUAL  COMPANIES 

DELIVERING  ALL  PUMPED  WATER. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  interest  on 
value  of  capital  stock 

Section  of  California 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Northern                                  

Central 

4 

7 

24 

35 

$5  86 
6  47 
6  49 
5  86 

$13  67 
36  17 
60  07 
60  07 

$2  44 
4  03 

10  73 
2  44 

$7  82 
27  44 

Southern. 

50  91 

Entire  state       ... .   .. 

.50  91 

Tal)le  22  indicates  that  the  lowest  cost  per  acre  and  jjer  acr(>-foot  for 
"all  pumped  water"  is  found  in  northern  California,  while  the  highest 
cost  is  under  u  system  in  southern  California, 


32 


DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 


The  minimum  cost  of  $5.86  per  acre  is  accounted  for  by  the  fact  that 
the  system  concerned  has  a  duty  of  only  0.86  acre-foot  per  acre,  and 
pumps  water  from  the  Sacramento  River  through  the  low  lift  of  24  feet. 
The  minimum  cost  of  $2.44  per  acre-foot  is  for  a  company  Iniying  water 
from  another  system  and  pumping  8  feet  from  a  canal.  This' cost  is  for 
a  rice  crop  which  uses  5.60  acre-feet  of  water  per  acre.  Incidently, 
because  of  the  large  amount  of  water  used,  this  system  has  the  highest 
cost  per  acre  in  northern  California,  $13.67. 

The  highest  cost'  of  $60.07  per  acre  and  $50.91  per  acre-foot  are 
found  under  a  company  in  southern  California.  The  lift  is  about  450 
feet  and  the  amount  of  water  used  is  1.18  acre-feet  per  acre.  The  items 
making  up  these  costs  have  already  been  discussed. 

Cost  of  water  for  various  crops — For  mutual  water  companies  furnishing 
water  for  several  crops  and  with  fixed  water  charges  such  as  assessments 
or  a  flat  rate  per  acre  it  is  difficult  to  make  fair  comparisons  of  the  cost 
of  water  for  different  crops.  There  are  many  companies,  however, 
especially  in  southern  California,  which  deliver  practically 
water  to  one  crop. 

The  following  summaries  of  tables  17  and  18  indicate  the 
in  costs  for  citrus  trees,  deciduous  trees  and  vines,  alfalfa 
for  northern,  central,  southern  California,  and  the  state  as 
The  number  of  companies  considered  is  shown  in  each  table. 


all   their 

variation 
and  rice, 
a  whole. 


TABLE  23- 


-SUMMARY   OF   ANNUAL   COST   OF  WATER  UNDER  MUTUAL   COMPANIES  IN 
NORTHERN  CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  interest  on  value 
of  capital  stock 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Alinimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees     .-      -   -- 

2 
9 
8 
3 

SI  84 
1  84 

1  84 

2  88 

S6  50 
7  82 
7  82 

13  67 

$0  55 
55 

55 
96 

$3  39 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa..      -      -   ... 

7  82 
7  82 

Rice          . .      .... 

2  44 

TABLE  24     SUMMARY   OF  ANNUAL   COST   OF   WATER  UNDER   MUTUAL  COMPANIES   IN 
CENTRAL  CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  interest  on  value 
of  capital  stock 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum  '^ 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees                  -    - 

3 

24 

16 

None 

$4  77 
83 
83 

$36  17 

36  17 

7  60 

$4  08 
40 
40 

$10  33 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa                  -   .   

27  44 
4  84 

Rice 

COST  OF  W.\TF,Ii  TO  IKKinATOK.S. 


;{:{ 


PLATE  V. 


..■■■..     --Lti:f-      .' 


m 


Fig.    1.      ISasin   irrigatimi  of  a   iirunc  (irchard 


Fig.    -'.      Dam  acr<i.ss  San  Jnacaiin   KixtT  at  head  of  San  Joariuiii  ami  Kings 

River  Canal. 


u 


DEI'AinWIKN'r  OK   IM'BLIC  WORKS. 


TABLE  26— SUMMARY   OF   ANNUAL  COST   OF  WATER  UNDER   MUTUAL   COMPANIES   IN 
SOUTHERN  CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  interest  on  value 
of  capital  stock 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa 

Rice 

59 
32 

22 
None 

$2  07 
2  07 
5  60 

$60  07 
41   28 
41   28 

$1   22 
1   22 
1   71 

$50  91 
27  67 
16  82 

TABLE   26     SUMMARY   OF  ANNUAL   COST   OF  WATER  UNDER   MUTUAL  COMPANIES   IN 

CALIFORNIA  FOR  VARIOUS  CROPS. 


Number 

of 

companies 

considered 

Cost  of  water  including  interest  on  value 
of  capital  stock 

Crop 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum. 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Citrus  trees 

Deciduous  trees  and  vines 

Alfalfa 

Rice 

64 

65 

46 

3 

$1  84 

83 

83 

2  88 

$60  07 
41  28 
41    28 
13  67 

$0  55 
40 
40 
96 

$50  91 

27  67 

16  82 

2  44 

PRIVATE  PUMPING   PLANTS. 

Introduction — The  United  States  census  of  1920  i-eported  21,561 
irrigation  pumping  plants  in  California;  the  present  number  is  doubtless 
more  than  25,000.  Most  of  these  plants  are  owned  and  operated  by  indi- 
vidual farmers,  although  some  of  the  other  types  of  irrigation  enter- 
prises depend  entire!}^  on  pumped  water  for  irrigation.  The  Census 
reported  826,846  acres  of  land  irrigated  by  pumping  from  wells  in  1919, 
and  this  acreage  has  increased  materially  since  that  date. 

The  average  farmer  keeps  very  few  pumping  plant  records.  For  this 
reason  it  was  necessary  to  test  each  plant  before  any  reliable  data  could 
be  ascertained  on  cost  of  pumping  water  for  irrigation.  It  is  obvious 
that  one  field  party  could  spend  several  years  determining  such  cost 
data,  and  then  cover  only  a  small  percentage  of  the  plants  in  the  state; 
hence  onl}'  private  j)umpiiig  plants  considered  representative  were  tested 
in  a  few  sections  of  the  state  which  had  not  already  been  fulty  covered 
in  the  surveys  of  other  types  of  irrigation  enterprises.  C.  N.  Johnston, 
Division  of  Irrigation  Investigations  and  Practic(\,  University  of  Cali- 
fornia, conducted  the  field  tests  to  ascertain  cost  of  pum]nng  for  rear 

1922  in  Sacramento  Valley,  while  Milo  B.  Williaius  and  W.  B.  IMahcr 
made  similar  tests  in  Santa  Clara,  San  Joaquin  and  other  valleys  for  the 

1923  season. 


FACTORS  IN  COST  OF  PUMPING  UNDER  PRIVATE 
PUMPING  PLANTS. 

Many  irrigators,  when  figuring  the  cost  of  pumping  water,  are  likely  to 
consider  only  the  actual  operating  expenses  of  a  plant;  but  the  cost  of 


COST  OK   WATKK    lit   IRRIGATORS. 


:}5 


irrigation  l)y  pumping  properly  inckuios  the  cost  of  fuel  or  power  attend- 
ance and  all  fixed  charges.  • 

Cost  of  power — Most  power  companies  supplying  electrical  energy  for 
use  in  irrigation  pumping  have  an  annual  demand  or  minimum  charge 
per  hoi-sepowei-  in  addition  to  an  energy  charge.  The  annual  power  hills 
for  the  plants  tested  were  obtained  from  the  companies,  l)ut  in  many 
cases  it  was  impracticable  to  separate  the  demand  or  minimum  charges 
from  the  (Miergy  charge.  Accordingly  this  segregation  will  not  be 
attempted  in  the  statements  which  follow.  The  jiower  lates  vary  with 
different  companies,  as  indicated  in  the  schetlules: 


TABLE  27.     POWER  SCHEDULES  FOR  PUMPING,  SACRAMENTO  VALLEY,  1922. 

Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Compamj . 
hah 

(a)  F"or  installations  of  less  than  50  horsepower: 

First  500  k.w.h.  per  meter  per  month .3.2  cents  per  k.w.h. 

Xext  500  k.w.h.  per  meter  per  month 2.7  cents  per  k.w.h.' 

Next        2,000  k.w.h.  per  meter  per  month 2.2  cents  per  k.w.h. 

.\II  over  3,000  k.w.h.  per  meter  per  month 1.7  cents  per  k.w.h. 

Minimum  charge:    $7  per  horsepow^er  per  year,  but  not  less  than  $30  per  year. 

(b)  For  installation  of  30  horsepower  and  over: 

Size  of  installation —  Rate  per  k.w.h.     Annual  minimum  charge  per  h.p. 

30to49h.p.- 2.2cents  $7  00 

50to99h.p... 1.7  cents  7  00 

100  h.p.  and  over ,.        1.5  cents  7  00 

100to499h.p 1.2cents  14  00 

Surcharge:    6  per  cent  in  addition  to  the  above  charges. 


TABLE  28.     POWER  SCHEDULES  FOR  PUMPING  PLANTS  TESTED  IN  1923. 

Pacific  Gas  and  Electric  Company. 

Territorj-,  Santa  Clara  Valley  and  Modesto. 


Rate  A. 


Size  of 
installations 


2  to      4  h.p 

5  to    14  h.p 

15  to    49  h.p 

50  to    99  h.p 

100  to  249  h.p 


Annual 

demand 

charge 

per  h.p. 


>S6  60 
6  00 

5  40 
4  50 
3  90 


Energy  charge  in  addition  to  the  demand  charge;  rate  per 
k.w.h.  for  consumption  per  h.p.  per  year  of — 


First 
1000  k.w.h. 


1.6  cents 
1.4  cents 
1.2  cents 
1.1  cents 
l.I  cents 


Xext 
1000  k.w.h. 


1.2  cents 

1.1  cents 

1.0  cent 

.9  cent 

.9  cent 


Xext 
1000  k.w.h. 


0.9  cent 
.8  cent 
.8  cent 
.75  cent 
.75  cent 


.\11  over 
3000  k.w.h. 


0.7  cent 
.7  cent 
.7  cent 
.7  cent 
.7  cent 


'In  no  case  will  the  total  annual  demand  be  less  than  $13.20. 

Rate  B.     Optional  Rate. 

Any  consumer  may  selec-t  at  his  option  the  following  rate  instead  of  the  demand  and  energy  rate 
set  forth  above. 


Horsepower 

of  connected 

load 


2  to      4 

5  to    14 

15  to    49 

.50  to    99 

100  to  249 


.\iinual 

minimum 

charge 

per  h.p. 


^$9  00 

8  00 
7  50 
7  00 
6  75 


Rate  per  k.w.h.  for  consumption  per  h.p.  per  year  of- 


First 
300  k.w.h. 


3.8  cents 
3.4  cents 
.3.0  cents 
2.6  cent.s 
2.4  cents 


Xext 
700  k.w.h. 


1.6  cents 
1.4  cents 
1.2  cents 
1 . 1  cents 
1.1  cents 


Xext 
1000  k.w.h. 


1.2  cents 

1.1  cents 

1.0  cent 

.9  cent 

.9  cent 


Xext 
1000  k.w.h. 


0.9  cent 
.8  cent 
.8  cent 
.75  cent 
.75  cent 


All  over 
3000  k.w.h. 


0.7  cent 
.7  cent 
.7  cent 
.7  cent 
.7  cent 


-In  no  case  will  the  total  minimum  charge  be  !e!*s  than  $27  per  year. 


36 


DE.r'ARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 


Rate: 


Coast  Counties  Gas  and  Electric  Company. 
Territory,  Morgan  Hill,  San  Martin,  Gilroy,  Watsonville,  Chualar. 


Demand  charge 

Gross 

Net 

For  the  first    5  h  p.  of  connected  load  -  _   _ 

$8  GO 
G  30 
4  00 

$8.00  jM'r  li.p.  per  year 
GOO  per  h.p.  jier  year 
4.00  per  h.p.  per  year 

For  the  next  45  h.p.  of  connected  load _    _    _ 

For  all  over  50  h.p.  of  connected  load .    _ _ 

Energy  charge 

Gross 

Net 

For  the  first    3,000  k.w.h.  per  year 

For  the  next  27  000  k.w.h.  oer  year _    _    

2.10  cents 
l.GO  cents 
1.35  cents 

2.00  cents  per  k.w.h. 

For  all  over  ,30  000  k  w  h   oer  year     ._      -    - 

1.25  cents  per  k.w.h. 

Total  charge:     The  total  charge  is  the  sum  of  the  demand  and  energy  charges. 

The  net  rate  is  effective  if  the  bill  is  paid  on  or  before  the  15th  of  the  month  next  succeeding  that  for 
which  the  bill  is  rendered. 

If  the  bill  is  not  paid  on  or  before  the  loth,  the  gross  charge  is  effective. 

San  Joaquin  Light  and  Power  Corporation. 
Territory,  Chowchilla,  McFarland. 

Size  of  plant —  Annual  demand  charge 

2  to    4  h.p $16  00  per  li.j).  per  year 

5  to  14  h.p 14  00  per  h.j).  per  year 

15  to  49  h.p 13  00  per  h.p.  per  year 

50  to  99  h.p 12  00  per  h.p.  per  year 

100  h.p.  and  over 11  00  per  h.p.  per  year 

• 

Energy  charge. 

First        1000  k.w.h.  per  year 0.9  cent  per  k.w.h. 

■  Next        1000  k.w.h.  per  year .8  cent  per  k.w.h. 

Next        1000  k.w.h.  per  year .7  cent  per  k.w.h. 

Next        2000  k.w.h.  per  year .6  cent  per  k.w.h. 

All  over  5000  k.w.h.  per  year --   .5  cent  per  k.w.h. 

Optional  Rate: 


Annual  consumption  per  horsepower 


First  500  k.w.h. 

Next  500  k.w.h. 

Next  1000  k.w.h. 
Next  1000  k.w.h. 
Next  2000  k.w.h. 
All  over  5000  k.w.h. 


Rate    per  k.w.h.  for 
connected  loads  of — 


15  to 
49  h.p. 


2.6  cents 
1.8  cents 
.8  cent 
.7  cent 
.6  cent 
.5  cent 


50  to 
99  h.p. 


2.4  cents 
1.8  cents 
.8  cent 
.7  cent 
.6  cent 
.5  cent 


100  h.p. 
or  over 


2.3  cents 
1.7  cents 
.8  cent 
.7  cent 
.6  cent 
.5  cent 


Minimum  charge:     First  10  h.p.  at  .115  per  h.p.  per  year,  but  not  under  .S30  jxt  year.     All  over  10  h.p 
at  $12  per  h.p.  i)cr  year. 

Southern  Ciilifurnia  Edison  Company. 

Territory,  Visalia,  lOxeter,  I^cmoii  Cove,  Lindsay,  I'ortcrvilic,  Tulare. 
Rale: 


Rate  per  k. 

w.h.  for  connected  load — 

Annual  consumption 
per  horsepower 

1  to 
4  h.p. 

5  to 
14  h.p. 

15  to 
49  h.p. 

50  to 
99  h.p. 

100  lip. 
or  over 

First       1000  kw.h.      

2.7  cents 
.9  cent 

2.5  cents 
.9  cent 

2.3  cents 
.9  cent 

2.2  cents 
.9  cent 

2.1  cents 

All  over  1000  k  w  h.              

.9  cent 

Minimum  charge:    First  10  h.p.,  $15  per  liorsepower  per  year  but  not  less  than  $30.    All  over  10  h.p. 
$12  per  horsepower  per  year.  u-     .  *     m  .    i  . 

Discount:    Above  rates  excepting  nnnimum  charge  are  subject  to  10  per  cent  discount. 


COST  OF   WATER  TO    IKKKIATOKS. 


37 


Optional  Rate: 


Size  of  installation 


1  to    4  h.p 

5  to  14  h.p 

l.">  to  4!)  h.p 

")0  to  00  h.p 

100  h.p.  and  over- 


Annual  charge 
])er  h.p. 


J18  on 

If)  00 
14  00 
13  00 
12  00 


Additional 

energy  rate 

per  k.w.li. 


0.9  cent 
.9  cent 
.9  cent 
.9  cent 
.9  cent 


Ton  j)or  cent  discount  on  above  rates. 

('().s7  of  fuel  oil — A  few  enj^ine-tlriveu  i)laiits  iiicludod  in  the  tests  used 
for  fuel  distillate  costing  12  cents  per  gallon. 

Attendance — Many  farmers  do  not  consider  the  expense  of  attendance 
as  ]->art  of  the  cost  of  operating  a  plant  as  they  spend  at  odd  moiiHuits  the 
time  necessary.  Such  time  should  l)e  charged  to  the  annual  cost  of 
water  just  as  though  the  irrigator  had  hired  the  work  done.  The  attend- 
ance charge  for  distillate  plants  will  vary  somewhat  depending  upon  the 
type  and  size.  Motor-driven  plants  require  very  little  attendance  and 
for  the  purpose  of  comparing  costs  this  item  will  be  taken  as  4  cents  per 
hour  of  operation. 

Fixed  charges — Interest  on  capital  invested,  taxes,  insurance,  deprecia- 
tion, renewals,  maintenance,  and  repairs  may  be  considered  as  repre- 
senting fixed  charges  and  properly  included  in  the  annual  cost.  The  cost 
of  a  complete  pumping  plant,  including  motor  or  engine,  pump,  well  and 
casing,  installation,  and  other  items,  represents  a  capital  which  if  invested 
in  reliable  securities  would  produce  an  interest  income.  Information 
on  the  cost  of  a  plant  can  usually  be  obtained  from  the  owner,  but  very 
seldom  the  other  fixed  charges.  Some  farmei-s  carry  no  insurance  on 
their  plant  and  keep  no  records  of  renewals,  maintenance  and  repairs. 
There  may  be  considerable  variation  in  the  fixed  charges  depending  upon 
the  rate  of  interest,  type  of  plant,  and  care  of  machinery.  For  estimating 
them,  a  uniform  percentage  of  total  cost  of  plant  was  used  throughout, 
in  order  to  make  possible  a  comparison  of  various  plants  tested.  These 
figures  are  shown  in  Table  29.  It  is  believed  they  represent  average 
pumping  plant  conditions. 


TABLE  as— ESTIMATED  FIXED  CHARGES  FOR  PUMPING  PLANTS. 


Interest. 

Taxe."  and  insurance 

Kepairs  anil  niaintonanoe.. 
Depreciation  and  renewals. 

Totals 


Electric 
plants 


6  per  cent 
1  per  cent 
1  per  cent 

7  per  cent 


15  per  cent 


Distillate 
plants 


0  per  cent 

1  per  cent 
■i  per  cent 

10  per  cent 


20  per  cent 


PUMPING  PLANT  TESTS. 


I)ischani( — Wiierevei-  jiossible  the  (piantity  of  water  being  lifted  by 
the  pumj)  was  measured  l)y  a  poitai)le  steel  weir  either  of  the  rectangular 
or  the  90-degree  triangular  notch  type.     The  discharge  was  determined 


38  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

fi'oin  standard  wo'iv  tahlos,     In  some  cases  the  "color  nicthod"*  was 
used  in  measuring  the  chscharge. 

Lift — The  working  head  was  determined  by  use  of  pressure^  and 
vacuum  gages  for  some  plants,  while  in  other  cases  it  was  measured 
directly  with  an  electric  sounding  line  especially  designed  for  the  purpose. 

Power — The  number  of  kilowatts  consumed  per  hour  by  the  electrical 
plants  was  computed  from  the  speed  of  the  meter  disk  and  the  meter 
constant.     The  disk  was  timed  by  a  stop  watch. 

Plant  efficiency — The  plant  efficiency  was  computed  from  the  measure- 
ments made  of  discharge,  lift,  and  power  input.  For  the  electric  plants 
it  is  the  ratio  of  the  water  horsepower  to  the  electrical  horsepower  input 
at  the  motor. 

Description  of  plants — It  was  not  the  purpose  of  this  investigation  to 
make  complete  mechanical  t(\sts  of  pimij^ing  plants  and  for  this  reason 
measurements  not  essential  in  determining  the  cost  of  pumping  were 
omitted.     Each  plant  tested  is  described  briefly  below: 

Plant  1. 

Location — Two  miles  north  of  Dixon  on  highway. 

Plant — lO-horsepower  General  Electric  motor;  ilirect-connected  to  a  .')-inch  Krogh 
centrifugal  pump.     Pit  29  feet  deep. 

C:'o.s<— Complete  plant  $1100. 

Remarlcs — In  1922  plant  operated  570  hours  and  iJUinpcd  ;!1.!>  acre-feet  of  water. 
Inefficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  42.3  per  cent. 

Plant  2. 

Location — Eight  miles  north  of  Dixon. 

Plant — 15-horsepower  General  Electric  motor;  direct -connected  to  a  No.  G  Krogh, 
Type  B,  pump. 

Cost — Complete  plant  $750. 

RemaH'K — In  1922  plant  opcu-ated  955  hours  and  pumped  139.5  acre-feet  of  water 
from  Putah  Creek.    Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  60  per  cent. 

Plant  3. 

Location — Two  miles  from  Dixon  on  highway. 

Plant — 7j-'2-horsepower  Cieneral  l<]lectric  motor;  dircct-comiecled  to  a    l-incli  Krogli 
pump  in  pit. 

CW— Complete  plant  $<S()0. 

Remarks — In   1922  pl;i,nt   operated  5()1   hours  and  pumped   15.15  acic-lect   of  water. 
Plant  ahnost  worn  out.     Plant  efficiencj'  estimated  a(  22  per  cent. 

Plant  4. 

LucaUun — One  and  one-half  jniles  north  of  Dixon. 

Plant — 10-hor.sepowcr  General  Electric  motor;  direct-comiectcd  in  pit  to  No.  (5  Krogh 
centrifugal  pump. 

Co.s/.— (^omi.h'tc  i)laiit  .flOOO. 

Remarks — Plant   ()pcrat(>d   1215  liours  and  pumped  SS.S  acre-feet   of  water  in   1922. 
f].stimated  plant  eflicicncy  IS. 5  per  cent. 

*Thc  Flow  of  Water  in  Concrete  I'lpc,  Ij.v  Fred  C.  Scobey,  Bulletin  So2,  U.  S.  I).  .\.,  paKc  IS. 


COST  OF  WATKK   TO   IHKKiATOKS. 


39 


PLATE  VI. 


Fig.   1.     Xevvly-built  storage  diim  of  Palmdale  and  Littlerock  Irrigation 

Districts. 


Fig.   2.      R.-low    San    Itimas    Wash — an    unusually    nrolific    underground    water- 
Ijearing  area  tapped  by  mai»y  irrigation  pumping  plants. 


40  DEPARTMENT  OP  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Plant  5. 

Location — One  and  one-half  miles  north  of  Dixon. 

Plant — 30-horsopo\vor  Watjnor  motor;  dirert-connoftod  to  7-iiich  Krogli  r-cntrifiigal 
pump. 

Cos/— Complete  plant  $1500. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated  1366  hours  and  i)uinped  258.3  arre-feof  of  water. 
Plant  ofRcienfy  estimated  at  42.5  per  cent. 

Plant  6. 

Location — Two  miles  northwest  of  Dixon. 

Plant — 35-horsei)ower  (ieneral  Electric  horizontal  motoi';  direct-connected  to  a  No.  S-B 
Krogh  pumj)  in  i)it  25  feet  deej). 

Cos<— Complete  plant  $2450. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated  1710  hours  and  piuni)ed  ;]42  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  42  per  cent. 

Plant  7. 

Location — Two  and  one-half  miles  northeast  of  Dixon. 

Plant — 25-horsepower  Western  Electric  motor;  connect (>d  to  Laync-liowler  Ti-inch 
turbine  pvunj). 

Cos<— Complete  i)lant  $2450. 

Re)nnrks — In  1922  i)lant  operated  1246  hours  and  iiumped   19S  acre-fet^t  of  wat(M-. 
Efficiency  of  i)lant  estimated  at  37  per  cent. 

Plant  8. 

Locatio7i— One  and  one-half  miles  northeast  of  Dixon. 

Plant — 50-horsepower  Westinghouse  motor;  belt-connected  to  a  12-inch  Layne-Bowler 
turbine  pump. 

Cos/— Complete  plant  $2450. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated  1740  hours  and  pumped  365  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  34.6  per  cent. 

Plant  9. 

Location — Near  Dixon,  Solano  County. 

Plant — 25-horsepowcr  Western   Electric  motor;  l)elt-connected   to  a    12-iiiili    Layiie- 
liowler  turbine  i)uinp. 

Cos/— Complete  plant  $2450. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated   925   hours   and    pum])ed    1  19-acre-i'eet    of    water. 
r]fficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  32  i)er  cent. 

Plant  10. 

Location — One  and  one  half  miles  northeast  of  Dixon. 

Plant — 15-horsepo\ver  (Jeneral   I'llectric   motor;  direct-connected   to  a   n-incli    i^yron- 
Jackson  centiifufi;al  punij). 

Cos/- Complete  plang  $1000. 

Remarks — In    1922  plant    operated  920  hours  and   iJimiped   60.7  aci-e-feel    of  water. 
Efficiency  of  i)lanl  estimated  ;it  29.7  per  cent. 

Plant  11. 

Location — Two  and  one-lialf  miles  nortlieast  of  Dixon  and  one  mile  from  highway. 

Plant — 10-horsepower    l-'ort    Wayne   motor;   direct-comiected    to  a   5-incli   centrifugal 
Price  ])ump. 


COST  OF   WATER  TO  IRRIGATORS.  41 

Cos/— Complete  plant  SI 235. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operateil  031  hours  and  piunpecl  .59.1)  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  o2.6  per  cent. 

Plant  12. 

Location — Two  miles  northea-st  of  Dixon. 

Plant — 25-hor.sepower  General  Electric  motor;  connected  to  a  12-inch  Layne-Bowler 
turbine  pump. 

Cos/— Complete  plant  $24.50. 

Rtni(irk'< — P^stimated  that  plant  operated  499  hours  and  pumped  S4.9  acre-feet  of 
water  in  1922.     Efficiency  (tf  plant  cltimateil  39. .5  per  cent. 

Plant  13. 

Location — One  mill'  north  of  Di.xon,  just  east  of  highway. 

Plant — 10-hor.sepower  rebuilt  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  .5-incli  Krogii  pump. 

Cos/— Complete  plant  §800. 

Remark.^ — Plant  operated  2417  hours  and  pumped  221.3  acre-feet  of  water  in  1922. 
Efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  39  per  cent. 

Plant  14. 

Location — University  farm  at  Davis. 

PZ«/(/—3.5-horse power  (ieneral  Electric  motor;  vertical  direct-connected  to  a  r2-inch 
Byron-Jackson  turbine  pump  in  a  14-foot  pit. 

Cos/— Motor,  $600;  pump.  $1200;  well  and  casing,  $640;  installition,  $100;  addi- 
tional items,  $150;  complete  plant  $2690. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated  608  hours  and  pumped  56.29  acre-feet  of  water. 
About  44.14  acre-feet  was  u.sed  for  irrigation  on  15  acres  of  alfalfa  and  12  acres  of 
orchard. 

Plant  15. 

Location — Three-fourths  mile  west  of  Davis. 

Plant — 25-horsepower  General  Electric  vertical  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  12-inch 
Layne-Bowler  deep  well  turbine  pump. 

Co.s/— Motor.  $756;  pump,  $1300;  well  and  casing,  $1300;  installation,  $200;  complete 
plant  $3556. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated  213  hours  and  pumped  12.6  acre-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  15.2  per  cent. 

Plant  16. 

Location — Three  and  one-half  miles  ea.st  of  Davis  on  .south  side  of  highway. 

Plant — 10-hor.sei)ower  Fairbank-s-Morse  motor;  belt-connected  to  a  5-inch  Byron- 
Jackson  centrifugal  pump  in  pit. 

Cost — Complete  plant  $1000. 

Retnarka — In  1922  plant  operated  362  hours  and  pumped  44  acre-feet  of  w^ater.  Plant 
efficiency  estimated  at  62  per  cent. 

Plant  17. 

Ijocalion — Two  miles  east  of  Davis  on  highway. 

Plant — 20-horsepower  Fairbanks- .Morse  motor;  boit-comiccted  to  a  12-inch  Layne- 
Bowler  piunp. 

Cos/— Complete  plant  $2500. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated  404  hours  and  pumped  2S.7  acre-feet  of  water. 
.\bout  half  the  pumping  w;i.s  to  eliminate  sand.  Efficiency  of  plant  e.stimated  at 
15.4  per  cent. 


42  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Plant  18. 

Location — Three  miles  east  of  Davis  and  north  (jf  highway. 

Plant — 20-horsepo\ver  Fairhanks-Morse  vertical  motor;  (lircct-coiinerted  to  a  r2-inph 
Layne-Bowler  turbine  pump. 

ro.s/— Motor,  $625;  pump,  $1100;  well  and  casing;,  $500;  complete  plant  $2225. 

Remarks — In  1922  i)lant  operated  319  hours  and  pumped  .V.i.'^  acre-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  4ti.S  per  cent. 

Plant  19. 

Location — Two  miles  east  of  Davis  on  a  road  one  mile  north  of  hifrhway. 

Plant — 20-horsepower  General  Electric  motor;  belt-connected  to  a   12-inch  Layne- 
Bowler  turbine  pump. 

Cos<— Complete  plant  $1100. 

Remarks — Tn   1922  plant  oi)erated  :U4  hours  and  pumiicd  2:^.3  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  25  per  cent. 

Plant  20. 

Location — I'niversity  farm  at  Davis. 

Plant — 25-horsepower  General  Electric  vertical  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  r2-inch 
Byron-Jack-son  turbine  ]jumi). 

Cos/— Motor,  $450;  jjump,  $14-40;  well  and  casing,  $500;  installation,  $200;  complete 
plant  $2590. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated  627  hours  and  pumped  62.84  acre-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  56  per  cent. 

Plant  21. 

Location — Two  and  one-half  miles  from  Woodland  on  Knights  Landing  highway. 

Plant — 100-horsepower  General  Electric  motor;  belt-connected  to  a  12-inch  Byron- 
Jackson  centrifugal  pump  in  pit. 

Co,s/— Complete  plant  $12,000. 

Remarks — In   1922  plant  operated   1194  hours  and  ])umped  S30  acre-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  ])lant  estimated  at  25.1  i)er  cent. 

Plant  22. 

Location — Three  miles  east  of  ^^'intcrs  on  highway. 

Plant — 40-horsepower  Wagner   motor;   connected  to  an   S-imli    rniicil   Ti-on   \\'niks 
horizontal  centrifugal  jjiunp. 

Cos<— Complete  plant  $3000. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated  597  hours  and  i)umped  17.S  acre-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  .'0  jxt  cent. 

Plant  23. 

Lijcdtion — Two  miles  east  of  \\'intcrs  on  highway. 

Plant — 16-horsepower  Rawleigh  Schryer  .single-cylinder  horizontal  distillate  engine; 
belt-connected  to  a  (i-indi  horizontal  American  i)Uiiii)  in  jiil. 

ro.s/— Complete  i)lant  .S2()()0. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  oix-rated  15.3  hours  and  i)umpcd  70.1  acre-feet  of  watci-. 
I'sed  132  galhnis  of  distillate  per  hour  at  12  cents  a  gallon.  I'lfiiciency  of  plant 
estimated  at  37  per  cent. 


COST  oi'  \v.\'ri:K   r(.»  ikkkiators.  4^ 

Plant  24. 

LocaHon — One  and  one-half  miles  cast  of  Wiiitirs  on  lii^jihway. 

Plant  20  horsepower  Fonlson  tractor  blocked  in  place;  belt-connected  to  a  o-inch 
Byron  Jackson  vertical  shaft  ventrifufjal  pump. 

ro.s7— I<:ngine,  S450;  pump,  S4()();  well  and  casing,  $401);  complete  plant  $1250. 

Remarks — In  1922  plant  operated  7.50  hours  and  pum])e<l  70. f)  acre-feet  of  water. 
Used  1.7  gallons  of  distillate  per  hour  at  12  cents  jxt  gallon.  Mfhciency  of  plant 
estimated  at  '.V2  per  cent. 

Plant  25. 

Location — Two  and  one-half  miles  south  of  WOodland. 

Plant — O.VhorsepowcM-  rebuilt  marine  eniiine;  bi-lt-coniiected  to  a  12-iiich  Price  centrif- 
ugal pump.     Suction  line  to  six  12-inch  wells. 

Co.s7— Engine.  $3500;  pimip,  .Sl.'OO;  wells  and  casings,  $4000;  installation,  $4-500; 
complete  plant  $18500. 

Remarks — In  1922  jilant  operated  504  hours  and  pumptMl  8.50  acre-feet  of  water. 
I'sed  0'2  gallons  of  distillate  per  hour  at  12  cents  per  gallon.  Attendance  charge 
40  cents  per  hour  operation,  ^^'ith  load  on  pump  engine  almost  idling.  ,\ssuming 
50-horsepower  from  engine,  efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  48  per  cent. 

Plant  26. 

Location — Eight  miles  south  of  San  Jose  at  Edenvale  Station  on  liighwa\-. 

Plant — 30  horse-jiower  ^^'estern  Electric  motor;  connected  to  a  5-inch  Byron  Jackson 
vertical  centrifugal  jjum])  set  in  a  IS  by  0  by  8  feet  wooden  i)it. 

Cos/— Complete  plant  .!;1500. 

Remarks — In  1923  jilant  operated  820  hours  and  pumped  134  acre-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  38.9  per  cent. 

Plant  27. 

Location — Five  and  one-half  miles  south  of  San  Jose. 

Plant — 15-horsepower  P^airbanks  Morse  motor;  connected  to  a  No.  5  Byron  Jackson 
centrifugal  pump  in  8  by  8  by  45  feet  wooden  pit.    Two  wells. 

Cost — Motor  and  pump,  $900;  well  and  ca.sing,  $270;  installation  SlOO;  complete 
plant  $1370. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  303  hours  and  i)umped  34  acre-feet  of  water.  I'lant 
efficiency  estimated  at  34  i)er  cent. 

Plant  28. 

Location — On  highway  south  of  San  Jose. 

Plant — 30-hor.sepower  Westinghouse  motor;  connected  to  an  8-inch  vertical  centrif- 
ugal pump  in  6  by  6  by  24  feet  jjit.     Two  wells  G  feet  ap:irt. 

Cost — Motor  and  pump,  $1800;  well  and  casing,  $1200;  additional  items,  $300;  com- 
pleted plant  $;j300. 

Remarks — -In  1923  plant  operated  454  hours  and  pumped  lOll.tl  .u-re-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  53.3  per  cent. 

Plant  29. 

Location — Almaden,  two  miles  northeast  of  Los  Gatos  road. 

Plant — 20-horsepower  Westinghouse  motor;  connected  to  a  No.  4  Krogh  v(Mtical 
centrifugal  pump  in  pit  52  feet  deep. 

Co-si— Complete  plant  estimated  at  $2000. 

Remarks — In  1923  j)lant  operated  937  hours  and  pumped  37.8  acre-feet  of  water. 
Estimated  plant  efficiency  35.3  per  cent. 


44-  DEPARTMENT  OF  PITBLIC  WORKS. 

Plant  30. 

Location — One  mile  northwest  of  Santa  Clara. 

Plant — 40-horsepower  General  Electric  niotor;  connected  to  a  Byron  Jackson  pninp. 

Cos<— Motor,  mOOO;  pump,  .$2280;  well  and  casing,  .$3.30,5;  complete  i)lant,  $().>3.5. 

Remarks — In  1923  o])cratcd  (i3<S  hoiu's  and  i)uini)c(l  lOO.fi  acre-feet  of  water.  Esti- 
mated plant  efficiency  ,57..')  pvr  cent. 

Plant  31. 

Loailion — One  mile  west  of  San  .Jose  on  Los  (iatos  road. 

Plant — ,50-horsei)ower  motor;  connected  to  a  6-inch  Krofrh  vertical  turbine  pump, 
set  in  12-foot  circular  pit  4(5  feet  dee|).  Top  suction  draws  from  three  10-incli 
wells. 

Cos<— Motor,  $8,50;  pump,  .1!;1200;  wells  and  casings,  $1,500;  pit,  .$2,500;  belt,  $1.50; 
house,  $200;  complete  plant,  $6400. 

Renmrks — In  1923  plant  operated  997  hours  and  pum])ed  106.8  acre-feet  of  water  for 
irrigation.  This  represents  94  per  cent  of  time  operated,  as  the  plant  was  also 
used  for  cannery.     Estimated  i)lant  efficiency  23.7  i)er  cent. 

Plant  32. 

Location — Two  and  one-half  miles  north  of  Mountain  View  on  highway. 

Plant — 20-horsepower  Robbins-Meyers  motor;  belt-connected  to  a  10-inch  Western 
deep  well  turbine  pump. 

Co.s;— Motor,  $4.50;  pump,  $1700;  well  and  casing,  $.500;  installation.  $100;  complete 
plant  $2800. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  oi)erated  738  hours  and  pumped  43.2  acre-feet  of  water. 
Estimated  efficiency  of  plant  29.7  per  cent. 

Plant  33. 

Location — Near  Santa  Clara,  on  corner  of  Gould  and  San  Francisco  Roads. 

Plant — 25-horsepower  General  Electric  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  Type  D.  W., 
Byron  Jackson  turbine  pump. 

Co.s^— Complete  plant  $7434. 

Remarks — In  1923  jilant  operated  371  hours  and  pumped  49  acre-feet  of  water.  Esti- 
mated i)lant  efHcien<'y  ,53.4  per  cent. 

Plant  34. 

Location — Santa  (Lara  at  Aivi.so  and  Saratoga  Roads. 

Plant — ,50-horsepower  Westinghouse  motor;  connected  to  a  Layne  and  Bowler  pinnji, 
s(>rial  No.  3418. 

Cos;— Complete  plant  $.5000. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  698  liours  and  pumjx'd  62.4  acre-fet-t  of  water. 
Estimated  ])lanl  efficiency  28.8  per  cent. 

Plant  35. 

Ldtidion.    -Three  and  one-half  miles  cast  of  S.an  .lose  on  Alum  Rock  Road. 

Plant — .50-hor.sepower  General  Electric  motor;  l)ch-connccted  to  a  \\'estcrn  L\nl>ine 
[)ump  in  a  pit  60  feet  deep. 

C'o.s^— Motor,  $11.50;  pump,  $1901);  well  and  casing,  $1201);  .addition.al  items,  $200; 
Complete  i)lant ,  $44.50. 

Remarks  —In  l'.)2.3  ])lant  operated  740  hours  and  pumped  IS.S  acic-leet  ol  u;iter. 
Estimated  i)lant  efficiency  29.4  per  cent. 


COST   OF   WA'l'KK   TO   IHHIUATOHS.  45 

Plant  36. 
Location — First  and  Rincini  streets  in  ("iunpln'll. 

Plant  -I'-)  liorsepowcr  (Iriu^rnl  KIcctric  motor,  coniicchHl  (o  ;i  lO-imli  l^iiync  :uiJ 
Howler  i)unii). 

Cos<— Complete  i)hint  SI 2,001). 

Remarks— \n  \^'1'\  plant  operated  1  iOli  liours  and  puniptnl  1S4.S  acre-feet  of  water. 
Sujiiilies  some  domestic  water  in  addition  to  irrijiating  2S0  acres  of  orchard.  Esti- 
mated plant  ediciency  4:5.2  per  cent. 

Plant  37. 

Locatinn — Saratoga  Ave.,  eifiht  miles  from  San  Jose. 

Plant — lO-horsepower  Wagner  motor;  type  of  ])umi)  unknown. 

Trw/— Complete  plant  $4100. 

Remarks—In  192:5  plant  operated  70S  hours  and  pumixnl  57.S  acre-feet  of  water. 
Estimated  plant  efficiency  lUi.H  per  cent. 

Plant  38. 

L)calion — Four  miles  southeast  of  San  Jose  on  McKee  Road. 

Plant — 30-horsepower  Western  Electric  motor;  connected  to  Layne  ami  Bowler 
pump. 

Co.s-/— Motor,  .?600;  pump,  .'i;2.500;  well  and  casing,  $4000;  installation,  $700;  extra 
l^ipe  $420;  complete  plant,  $8220. 

Remarks — In  192:?  i)lant  operated  1010  hours  and  ])umped  40.8  acre-feet  of  water. 
Estimated  efficiency  of  plant  32.1  per  cent. 

Plant  39. 

Location — Cupertino,  on  Homestead  Ave. 

Plant — .50-horsepo\ver  General  Electric  motor;  connected  to  a  r2-inch  Byron  Jackson 
deep-well  turlMne  putnp. 

Co.s-<— Complete  plant  $7800. 

Remarks— In  192:i  plant  operated  :;2()  hours  and  pumpt'd  27  acre-feet  of  watei'.  Esti- 
mated plant  efficiency  40  per  cent. 

Plant  40. 

Location — Five  miles  from  San  Jose  on  the  road  to  Los  Catos. 

P/a«<— 7.5-hor.sepower  Westinghouse  motor;  connected  to  a  Layne  and  Bowler  i)ump. 

Co.s<— Motor  and  pump,  $4990;  comi)lete  plant  estimated  at  $8000. 

Remarks — In  192:5  phint  operated  :i()8  hours  and  pumped  ()").()  acre-feet  of  water. 
Estimated  plant  effi<'iency  .52.(5  per  cent. 

Plant  41. 

Location — Near  Blaney  Station  at  Cupertino. 

Plant — ;:0-hor.sepower  Fairhanks-Mor.se  motor;  conni'cted  to  a  10-inch  Wfstern  \\<ll 
Co.,  deei)-well  tnrhine  i)ump. 

Cosi— Motor,  $700;  pump,  .$;J000;  well  and  casing,  $2:i.50;  complete  plant  SCOriO. 

Remarks — In  192:5  operated  .'):5:5  hours  and  jjiunped  :54.2  acre-feel  of  water.  Esti- 
mated plant  efficiency  :57.4  per  cent. 


4()  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Plant  42. 

Location — Near  Lawrence  Station  at  Cupertino. 

PZa?(/— 75-horsepower  Fairbanks-Morse  motor;  connected  (o  :i  ^^'estern  ^^'ell  Works, 
deep-well  turbine  i)ump  in  a  pit  100  feet  deep. 

Cos<— Complete  plant  estimated  at  $8000. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  IISO  hours  and  pumped  275  acre-feet   of  water. 
Several  orchards  are  irrigated  from  this  jjunii). 

Plant  43. 

Location — One  and  one-half  miles  south  of  Cupertino  on  Surii1oji;i  Road. 

PZfl7//— 35-horsepower    Westinghouse    motor;    belt-connected    to    a    10-inch    Krogh 
turbine  pump. 

Co.s7— Complete  plant  $4900. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  ()])erated  890  hours  and  jtumiied  31.1  acre-feet  of  water. 

Plant  44. 

Location — Los  Gatos,  I^nion  Ave.,  at  iS.  P.  R.  R.  crossing. 

Plant — 7.5-horsepower  General  Electric  motor;  belt-connected  to  a  Layne  and  Bowler 
deep-well  turl)ine  })unip. 

Co.^<— Motor,  $lie0;  pump,  $.5000;  well  and  casing,  $8500;  installation,  $250;  hou.se 
and  derrick,  $500;  complete  plant,  $15,400. 

Remarks — In   1923  i)lant  oi)erated  952  hf)urs  and  i)umi)ed   l.')3.2  acre-feet  of  water. 
Estimatetl  efficiency  of  i)lant  32.2  per  cent.     Two  other  wells  were  atjandoned  here. 

Plant  45. 

Location. — Santa  Clara  \'alley,  off  Quito  Road. 

Plant — 100-horsepower  Wagner  motor;  connected  to  a  Xo.  12  Beau  deep-well  turbine 
pump. 

Cost — Complete  plant  estimated  at  $15,000. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  918  hours  and  pumped  132.2  acre-feet  of  water. 

Plant  46. 

Location — Off  Quito  Road,  Santa  Clara  Valley. 

Plant — 100-horsejwwer  Wagner  motor;  l)elt-connecled  to  a  \\'estern  deei)-well  turbine 
pump. 

Co.s/— Motor,  $11.50;   |>unip,  $4330;   well,   casiiut,   and   installation.  $9820;  coinpjcte 
l)lant,  $15,400. 

Remarks — In  1923  operated  1080  hours  antl  pumi)ed  7'.!. 2  acic-fccl  of  wati-r. 

Plant  47. 
Location — On  Quito  Road,  Santa  Clara  \'alley. 

Plant — .50-hor.sepower  General  Electric  motor;  connected   to  a    Layne  and    Bowler 
pump. 

Cost—MoioY,  $1150;  pump.  .S32()0;  complete  i)lant  estimated  at  $9000. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  623  hours  and  j)umi)ed  38.7  acre-feet  of  water. 

Plant  48. 
Location — Lexiton  Road  and  Homestead  St.,  Santa  Clara. 

Piorti— 30-horsepower  Westinghouse  motor;  belt-connected   to  a  Xo.  (i   Bean   two- 
stage  vertical  centrifugal  pump  set  iti  a  concn-te  pit  (i  by  (i  In-  50  feet. 

CW  -Complete  plant  .$3250. 

Remarks — .\mount  of  water  pumjied  and  lioius  operated  could  not   be  ascertained. 
Capacity  of  p\inip  l.;58  eu.  ft.  per  second. 


COST  oi'  \V.\Ti:ix'  'I'o   IlxM{r(;.\TOKS. 


47 


PLATE  VII. 


Fig.    1.      Bear  Valley  Dam  in  the  San  Bernardino  Mountains,  storing  irrigation 
water  for  important  citrus  areas  in  San   Bernardmo  County. 


Kit;.   2.      H.niet   Dam,   Riverside  County,  l.uill   lo  supply  irrigation  water  to  tlif 

vicinity  of  Hemet. 


48  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Plant  49. 

Location — Two  miles  east  of  Morgan  llill,  Santa  Clara  County. 

Plant — 40-horsepower   General   Electric   submersible   motor,    connected   to   a  seven 
stage  9j^-inch  Byron  Jackson  turbine  pump. 

Cos<— Complete  plant  $4400. 

Remarks — In  1923  operated  1910  hours  and  puiiiiiod  76.4  acre-feet  of  water.     Esti- 
mated plant  efficiency  48.2  per  cent. 

Plant  50. 

Location — San  Martin,  Santa  Clara  County. 

Plant — 40-horsepower   Fairbanks-Morse   motor;   coiuioctod   to   a   Campbell-Budlong 
deep-well  special  pumj). 

Cos<— Complete  plant  $4478. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  369  hours  and  pumjied  64.9  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  33.7  per  cent. 

Plant  51. 

Location — San  Martin,  Santa  Clara  Comity,  one  mile  east  of  S.  P.  R.  R.  on  Church 
Ave. 

Plant — ^15-horsepower  General  Electric  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  Byron  Jackson 
10-inch  pump. 

Cost — Motor  and  pump,  $1640;  complete  plant  $3130. 

Remarks — In  1923  operated  186  hours  and  pumped  16  acre-feet  of  water.    Estimated 
efficiency  of  plant  44.8  per  c^ent. 

Plant  52. 

Location — Gilroy,  on  Church  Ave. 

Plant — 20-horsepower  Robbins-Meyers  motor;  belt-connected  to  a  10-inch  Western 
turbine  pump. 

Cost — Motor,  pump,  well,   casing,  and  installation,  $2600;  additional  items,  $100; 
complete  plant  $2700. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  285  hours  and  j)umped  26.6  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  e.stimated  at  26  per  cent. 

Plant  53. 

Location — Gilroy,  on  Church  Ave.,  one  half  mile  east  of  S.  P.  R.  R. 

Plant — 20-horsepower  Crocker-Wheeler  motor;  belt-connected  to  a  Western  dee])-we]l 
turbine  piunp  in  pit  40  feet  deej). 

Co.s<— Motor,  $390;  pump,  $1400;  well  and  casing,  $485;  installation,  $40;  house, 
.$.50;  complete  plant  $2365. 

Remarks — In  1923  operated  911  hours  and  pumped  IOC)  acre-feet  of  water.     Plant 
efficiency  estimated  at  32.7  per  cent. 

Plant  54. 

Location — Gilroy,  state  highway  and  Church  Ave. 

Plant — .30-horsei)ower  Faiibank.s-M()rs(>  motor;  iM-lt-connected  to  a  7-inch  Campbell- 
Budlong  deei)-weli  turl)ine  pump. 

Cost — Motor  and  i)ump,   $1600;   well  and  casing,   $1000;   installation,   $70;   hou.se, 
$40;  complete  plant  .$2710. 

Remarks — In  192:5  phuit  operated  ,532  hoiu's  and  jumiped  88  acre-feet  of  water.     l%fTi- 
ciency  of  ])lant  estimated  at  27.9  per  cent. 


COST  Ol'^  WATKR   TO   IRKKIATOKS.  49 

Plant  65. 

Location — 3  miles  northeast  (if  W  atsoiivilli". 

Plnnt — 7'-2-horsepowpr  Westinshouso  horizontal  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  United 
Iron  Works  pump.     Source  of  water,  Pinto  Lake. 

Cofit — Motor,  pump,  and  i)ii)e,  .So.')0;  installation,  $50;  complete  plant  .§400. 

Rcuinrks — In  HV23  plant  operated  481  hours  and  pumi)ed  32.."?  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  27.0  per  cent. 

Plant  56. 

Location — Watsonville  on  Beach  Road. 

Plant — l.'i-horscpowcr  Fairbanks-Morse  motor;  connected  to  a  Bean  horizontal 
centrifugal  pump.     Artesian  well. 

Cos<— Motor,  ?r>00;  complete  phmt  -SIOOO. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  339  hours  and  pumped  30.8  acre-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  50  per  cent. 

Plant  57. 

Location — One  mile  east  of  Watsonville. 

Plant — 20-horsepower  Fairbanks-Mor.se  horizontal  motor;  direct-connected  to  a 
tVinch  Fairl)anks-Morse  pump,  in  concrete  pit  10  feet  deep. 

Cost — Motor  and  i)ump,  SS40;  well  and  casing,  S725;  pit  and  additional  items,  .S7o0; 
electric  work,  $90;  complete  plant  $2405. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  o])erated  SOB  hours  and  i)umppd  129.7  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  .50.(5  per  cent. 

Plant  58. 

Location — Two  miles  south  of  Chualar,  Monterey  County. 

Plant — 20-horsepow'er  General  Electric  horizontal  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  Xo.  6 
Byron  Jack-son  side-suction  pump  in  wooden  pit  18  feet  deep. 

Cost — Motor  and  pump,  SlSoO;  pit,  house  and  in.stallation,  $500;  complete  plant  S2350. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  3910  hours  and  pimiped  712  acre-feet  of  water. 
Estimated  efficiency  of  plant  49.5  per  cent. 

Plant  59. 

Location — Eight  miles  west  of  Modesto,  Stanislaus  County. 

/^/^/>//— 20-horsepowcr  Robbins-Meyers  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  10-inch  Byron 
Jack.son  type  S  horizontal  dout)le-suction  i)ump  set  in  a  contTetc  pit  12  feet  deej) . 
Source  of  water  Tuolumne  River. 

Co.s/— Complete  plant  $3403.0(). 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  1007  hours  and  pumped  562  acre-feet  of  water. 

Plant  60. 

Location — Soiith  of  Turlock  allotment  00,  Delhi  State  Land  Settlement,  Merced 
County. 

Plant — 20-hors<.'power  V.  S.  motor;  connected  to  a  Sterling  I'nitype  turbine  pump. 

Co.s<— Complete  plant  $1.5tMl. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  3330  hours  and  pumped  532  acre-feet  of  water. 
E.stimated  efficiency  of  pump  35.3  jxt  cent. 


50  DEPARTMENT  OF  Pl'BI.rr  WORKS. 

Plant  61. 
Location — One  mile  west  of  Delhi,  Merced  County. 

Plant— \b  horsepower  U.  8.  motor;  connected  to  a  Sterling  tmhine  pump.     Drainage 
well. 

Cos<— Complete  plant  $1500. 

Remarks— In  192;{  plant  operated  4140  hours  and  i)umped  538  acre-feet  of  water. 
E.«:timated  efficiency  of  plant  40  per  cent. 

Plant  62. 

Location — Several  miles  northeast  of  Delhi,  Merced  County. 

P/a///--15-horsepo\ver   ^^'estinghouse   motor;   direct-connected   to   a    Byron   Jackson 
vertical  centrifugal  pump  in  a  concrete  pit.     Pumps  water  from  a  canal. 

Cosi— Complete  plant  $1200. 

RemarkH~ln  1923  plant  operated  619  hours  and  pumped  126.8  acre-feet  of  water. 
Estimated  efficiency  of  plant  60.7  per  cent. 

Plant  63. 

Location — One  mile  west  of  Chowchilla,  Madera  County,  on  13th  Road. 

Plant — 3-hor.sepower  Fairbanks-Morse  motor;  comiected  to  a  Krogh  centrifugal 
pump  in  pit. 

Cos<— Motor,  $200;  pump,  $300;  well  and  casing,  $50;  installation,  $50;  complete 
plant  $600. 

Retnarks — In  1923  estimated  plant  operated  656  hours  and  pumped  24.2  acre-feet  of 
water.     Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  24.2  per  cent. 

Plant  64. 

Location — One-half  mile  west  of  Chowchilla,  Madera  County,  on  Robertson  Road. 

Plant — 10-horsepower  Westinghouse  motor;  connected  to  a  horizontal  centrifugal 
pump. 

Cost — Motor  and  pump  installed,  $850;  well  and  casing  $300;  additional  items,  $150; 
complete  plant  $1300. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  1084  hours  and  pumped  42.3  acre-feet  of  water, 
lifting  water  3  feet  higher  than  surge  level.  Estimated  efficiency  of  plant  34.8 
per  cent. 

Plant  65. 

Lucation — Four  miles  east  of  \'isalia  on  Porterville  Road. 

Plant — 10-horsepower  Westingh()u.se  motor;  connected  to  a  No.  5  Fresno  pump  in  pit 
6  feet  deep. 

Cost — Motor  and  puni)),  $1000;  w(>l!  and  ca.sing,  $150;  installation,  $100;  pit  and  house, 
$100;  complete  plant  $1350. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  872  hours  and  pum])cil  102.8  acre-feet  of  water. 
Estimated  efficiency  of  i)lant  45.7  per  cent. 

Plant  66. 

Location — Two  miles  north  of  Exeter. 

Plant — 7j^-hor.sepower  Fairl)ank..s-Mor.se  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  Bean  horizontal 
centrifugal  ])vnnp,  set  in  an  elliptical  concrete  i)it  25  feet  deep. 

Cos<— Motor  and  pump,  $1()()();  well,  $139;  pit,  $133;  complete  plant  $1300. 

Remarks — In  1923  |)lant  operated  1638  hours  and  jjumped  36.9  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  at  19.6  per  cent. 


COST  oi''  \v.\'n:K'   lo  iK'ixicA'roix's. 


51 


PLATE  VIII. 


Fig.   1.      A    typical   irrigation    reservoir  of  tlie   footliill   belt   near   Pomona,    filled 

from  pumping  plant. 


!*Sf* 


Fig.    J.     Cro.ss-lurrow   IrriKutlon  of  walnuts  in  Oranee  County. 


52  DEPARTMENT  OP"  PUBLIC  WORKS. 

Plant  67. 

Location — Two  and  one-luilf  milos  from  Exetei'  on  highway  to  Lindsay. 

Plant — 3-horsepower  Century  motor;  connected  to  a  No.  3  Standfield-McKnight 
deep-well  plunger  pump. 

Cost — Motor,  puni]),  and  insstallation,  $983;  well  and  casing,  $491;  additional  items, 
$.50. 

Reinarks — In  1923  i)lant  operated  224t)  hours  and  i)um])e(l  22.2  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  at    10. S  per  cent. 

Plant  68. 

Location — Four  miles  from  Lemon  Cove  on  E.xeter  Highwa\'. 

Plant — 10-horsepower  Fairhank-Morse  motor;  connected  to  a  Bean  S])ray  vertical 
turbine  pump. 

fW/— Complete  plant  $1410. 

Remarks — In  1923  plant  operated  3025  hours  and  pumped  154  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  05  per  cent  or  more. 

Plant  69. 

Location — One-half  mile  north  of  Lindsay. 

Plant — 5-horsepower  General  Electric  motor;  connected  to  a  Brisco-Morley  pump. 

Cost — Motor  and  pump,  $1200;  well  and  casing,  $450;  additional  items,  $250;  complete 
plant  $1900. 

Remarks — In  1923  ])lant  o])(>rated  4405  hoiirs  and  iiumi)ed  (il.ti  acre-feet  of  water. 
Plant  efficiency  estimated  49.0  per  cent.  Pump  i)ulled  three  times  in  1923.  Cover 
crop  grown. 

Plant  70, 

Location — Six  miles  southeast  of  Porterville. 

Plant — 15-horsei)ower  General  Electric  motor;  connected  to  a  Keystone  deep-well 
double  acting  pump. 

Cosf— Complete  plant  $4500. 

Retnarks — In  1923  plant  operated  3(530  hours  and  i)vuni)ed  69  acre-feet  of  wati-r. 
I'^fficiency  of  plant  eltimated  at  63.6  per  cent. 

Plant  71. 

Location — Six  miles  .south  of  Tulare  on  highway. 

Plant — 15-hor.sepower  Rol)l)ins- Meyers  motor;  direct-connected  to  a  No.  (1  Superior 
inmip  in  i)it  18  feet  deep. 

Co.sY— Motor  and  pum]),  .$1030;  well  and  casing,  $100;  complete  plant  .<ll;{0. 

Retnarks — In  1923  plant  operated  3350  hovus  and  puniiK'd  296  acre-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  plant  estimated  at  35  per  cent. 

Plant  72. 

Location — Two  and  one-fourth  miles  northwest  of  McFarland,  Kern  ('ounly. 

Plant — 10-hor.sepower  General  Electric  motor;  connected  to  a  Byron  Jackson  deej)- 
well  turbine  piini|). 

Cos«— Complete  plant  $1450. 

Remarks — In  192:]  i)lant  operated  5830  hoiu's  and  ])umped  Kill. 5  acre-feet  of  water. 
Efficiency  of  ])lant  estimated  at  41.1  per  cent.  Water  pumpeil  into  reservoir  18 
hours  and  irrigates  (i  houi's. 


53 


tlio 
)\vi'r 
lata 
ings 

)\vcr 
i  27 

e  29 

uiim 
25  i8 

unm 
iiinn 

1,  17 
cost 
The 
icrc- 
s  30 
pital 
tyof 
X 

ized 
not 


IN 


'er 

-ft.  per 
.  lift 

$0  065 
1   317 

r  the 
hints 
latccl 
cpan- 
xatpfl 

15.2 
than 


TABLE  30.-COST  OF  WATER  FOR  IRRIGATION  IN  CALIFORNIA. 
Private  Pumping  Plants  in  Sacramento  Valley.    1922. 


37104 — facing  p.  52 


COST  Ol''   WATKK'   TO    lltKKJATORS. 


53 


COST  OF    PUMPING    UNDER  PRIVATE  PUMPING   PLANTS. 

Description  of  Table  Sr)— This  tahlc  has  been  prepared  to  show  the 
animal  rosi  of  water  to  irrigators  under  25  pumping  phuits  in  the  lower 
Saeramento  Vallev  for  1022.  It  also  shows  other  pumping  l)lanl  data 
and  factors  affecting  the  cost  of  water.  Most  of  the  column  headings 
are  st^lf-explanatorv  and  will  not  be  taken  up  in  detail  here. 

Column  Hi,  "Power  bill,"  includes  minimum  charge  per  horsepower 
instahed,  energy  charge^  pei-  kilowatt-hour,  and  surcharge.  Table  27 
shows  the  powvv  rates  (effective  for  1922  in  Sacramento  \'alley. 

Column  23,  under  "Fixtnl  charges,"  includes  all  estimated  fixed  (-hargcs 
except  interest  on  cost  of  plant  which  is  shown  in  column  22.    Table  29 

gives  these  in  detail.  ^  ,,  ,<  ^ 

Cohimns  24  and  25  show  "Annual  cost  of  water  per  acre-toot.  I  olumii 
24  is  etiual  to  the  summation  of  columns  20,  21,  and  23.  Cohunn  25  is 
e(iual  to  column  24  plus  column  22,  "Interest." 

Columns  26  and  27  show  "Annual  cost  of  water  per  acre.  (  olumn 
26  is  e(iual  to  column  24  multiplied  l)y  the  duty  of  water  shown  in  column 
13.    Column  27  is  ecjual  to  column  25  multiplied  by  column  13. 

Summari/  of  table  30— Oi  the  22  electric  pumping  plants  tested,  17 
iirigate  alfalfa  entirely  while  3  irrigate  some  alfalfa.  The  annual  cost 
of  water  per  acre  for  irrigating  alfalfa  ranges  from  $9.53  to  $45.63.  The 
cost  per  acre-foot  varies  from  $2.91  to  $19.09,  while  the  cost  per  acre- 
foot  per  foot  lift  ranges  from  $0,065  to  $0,355.  The  lowest  hit  is  30 
f(>et  and  the  highest  is  73  feet.  The  cost  of  the  pumping  plant,  or  capital 
invested,  varies  from  $21.43  to  $208.33  per  acre.  The  minimuin  duty  of 
water  for  alfalfa  is  1.21  acre-feet  per  acre  while  the  maximum  is  4.80. 

C^olumns  9,  8.  11,  11,  15,  25,  27,  and  29  in  Table  30,  will  be  summarized 
in  Table  31.  The  distillate  plants  numbers  23,  24,  and  25,  are  not 
included. 


TABLE  31     SUMMARY   OF   COST   OF   PUMPING   FOR  ELECTRIC   PLANTS   TESTED   IN 

SACRAMENTO  VALLEY. 


Lift, 
feet 

Time 
oper- 
ated, 
hours 

Area 
irri- 
gated, 
acres 

Duty  of 

water 
per  aere, 
acrc-ft. 

Cost  of 

plant 
per  aere 

Annual  cost  of  water 

I'er 
ac.  ft. 

Per  acre 

Per 

aere-ft.  per 

ft.  lift 

Miniiiiuni-  . 
Maxiiuuni     . 

7:1 

213 
2,417 

7 
2(J0 

().()7 
4.80 

$0  77 
20s  33 

.S2  M 
-)-.  31 

S3  01 
4.5  63 

$0  0(5") 
1   317 

Manv  of  1I1C  i)lants  in  this  section  operate  only  a  small  portion  of  the 
irrigati<)n  season.  This  would  indicate  that  the  capacity  of  such  plants 
is  too  large  for  the  acreage  irrigated.  Tlu>  numb(>r  of  hours  operattnl 
could  be  increased  several  times  and  th(^  acreage  irrigated  might  be  expan- 
ded accordingly.  This  would  decrease  the  fixed  charges  per  acre  irrigated 
and  per  acre-foot  of  water  pum|:)ed. 

The  plant  efficiency  of  the  25  pumping  i)lants  tested  ranges  from  b5.2 
to  ()2  per  cent.  Three  were  below  20  pei-  cent  while  ten  were  more  than 
40  per  cent. 


52 


Locatioi 

Plant— 
deep- 

Co.st~y 
$50. 

Remark 
Plant 


Localio. 

Plant— 
turbi 

Cost—i 

Remark 
Plan 


Locatio 
Plant- 
Cost-] 
plan 

Retunrl 
Plan 
crop 

Locatic 

Plant- 
doul 

Cost— 

Remar 
Effi( 


Locatii 

Planl- 
pun 

Cost— 

Remar 
Effic 


Luailii 

Plant- 

wcll 

Cost— 

Reniai 
Kffii 
hou 


COST  OK   \V.\Ti:i{    ro   IKKKIATOIJS. 


53 


COST  OF    PUMPING    UNDER  PRIVATE  PUMPING   PLANTS. 

Dcficription  of  Table  30— This  table  ha.s  l)(>oii  picparcd  to  show  the 
annual  cost  of  wntor  to  irrip:ators  imdor  25  puni|)in{i;  plants  in  the  lower 
Sacramento  \'alley  for  1922.  It  also  shows  other  pumping  i)laiit  data 
aiul  factors  affecting  the  cost  of  water.  Most  of  the  column  headings 
are  self-explanatory  and  will  not  be  taken  up  in  detail  here. 

Column  16,  "Power  bill,"  includes  minimum  chaige  pei'  hoiscpowtM- 
installeil.  energy  charge  per  kilowatt-hour,  and  surcharge.  Table  27 
shows  the  power  rates  effective  for  1922  in  vSacramento  Valley. 

Column  23.  under  "Fixed  charges,"  includes  all  estimated  fixed  cliai'ges 
except  interest  on  cost  of  plant  which  is  shown  in  column  22.  Table  29 
gives  these  in  tletail. 

Colmnns  24  and  25  show  "Annual  cost  of  water  per  acre-foot."  Column 
24  is  equal  to  the  summation  of  columns  20,  21,  and  23.  Column  25  is 
ecjual  to  coknnn  24  plus  column  22,  "Interest." 

Coknnns  26  and  27  show  "Annual  cost  of  water  per  acre."  Colunm 
26  is  equal  to  cohunn  24  nudtiplied  by  the  duty  of  water  show^n  in  column 
13.    Column  27  is  equal  to  column  25  multiplied  by  column  13. 

Summary  of  table  30 — Of  the  22  electric  pumping  plants  tested,  17 
irrigate  alfalfa  entirely  while  3  irrigate  some  alfalfa.  The  annual  cost 
of  water  per  acre  for  irrigating  alfalfa  ranges  from  S9.53  to  S45.63.  The 
cost  per  acre-foot  varies  from  S2.91  to  S19.09,  whiU^  the  cost  per  acre- 
foo^  per  foot  lift  ranges  from  S0.065  to  $0,355.  The  lowest  lift  is  30 
feet  and  the  highest  is  73  feet.  The  cost  of  the  punij^ing  plant,  or  capital 
invested,  varies  from  S21.43  to  .S208.33  per  acre.  The  minimum  duty  of 
water  for  alfalfa  is  1.21  acre-feet  per  acre  while  the  maximum  is  4.80. 

Columns  9,  8,  11,  11,  15,  25,  27,  and  29  in  Table  30,  will  be  summarized 
in  Table  31.  The  distillate  plants  numbers  23,  24,  and  25,  are  not 
included. 


TABLE  31     SUMMARY   OF   COST   OF  PUMPING   FOR  ELECTRIC   PLANTS   TESTED   IN 

SACRAMENTO  VALLEY. 


Mininiuni. 
Maximum. 


Time 

Area 

Duty  of 

Lift, 
feet 

oper- 
ated, 
hours 

irri- 
gated, 
acres 

water 
per  acre, 
acrc-f  t . 

30 

213 

7 

0  f)7 

73 

2,417 

200 

4  80 

Cost  of 

plant 
l)er  acre 


$.5  77 
20S  33 


Annual  cost  of  water 


Per 
ac.  ft. 


$2  81 
.55  31 


Per  acre 


$3  01 
4.1  63 


Per 

acrc-f t.  per 
ft.  lift 


$0  0(5.5 
1   317 


M;iny  of  the  i)lants  in  this  section  opiM-ate  only  a  small  portion  of  the 
irrigation  season.  This  would  indicate  that  the  capacity  of  such  plants 
is  too  large  for  the  acreage  irrigated.  The  numi)er  of  hours  ojierated 
could  be  increased  several  times  and  the  acreage  inigat(Hl  might  be  expan- 
ded accordingly.  This  would  decrease  the  fixed  charges  per  acre  irrigated 
and  per  acre-foot  of  water  pumperl. 

The  plant  efficiency  of  the  25  pumping  j)lants  tested  ranges  fn^m  15.2 
to  62  per  cent.  Three  were  below  20  per  cent  while  ten  were  more  than 
40  per  cent. 


54 


1>E1'AKTME.\T  OF  i'i:BJdC  WoKKS. 


Description  of  Table  32 — Tabulations  in  this  table  have  been  ('oini:)ile(l 
showing;  the  annual  cost  of  water  to  irrigators  under  47  pinnpinji;  plants 
in  Santa  Clara  X'alley,  San  Joaquin  Valley,  and  in  other  sections  of  the 
state,  for  1923.  Other  information  on  pumping  plants  and  factors  which 
affect  the  cost  of  water  are  also  included  in  the  table. 

The  methods  of  compiling  the  data  for  Table  32  were  similar  to  those 
used  for  Table  30.  The  rates  for  electrical  power  were  diff(M-ent  from 
those  in  effect  in  1922.  Table  28  shows  the  power  schedules  in  detail  for 
1923. 

Summary  of  Table  32 — All  the  plants  tested  were  driven  by  electricity. 
Fair  comparisons  of  cost  of  pumping  water  in  different  sections  are 
difficult  to  mak(\  as  power  schedules,  local  ground  water  conditions, 
and  number  of  houi's  of  op(>ration,  have  a  witle  range  of  variation.  The 
plant  efficiency  of  the  plants  tested  ranged  from  19.6  to  65  per  cent. 
Three  were  below  25  per  cent,  nineteen  40  per  cent  or  over,  and  nine  50 
per  cent  or  over. 

Plants  numbered  26  to  48,  inclusive,  in  Santa  Clara  Valley,  furnished 
water  for  irrigating  deciduous  fruit  trees,  and  should  give  a  fair  indica- 
tion of  cost  of  pumped  water  in  that  territory.  Table  33  shows  a  summary 
of  these  plants. 


TABLE 

33— SUMMARY  OF  COST 

OF  PUMPING  IN 

SANTA  CLARA  VALLEY. 

Lift, 
feet 

Time 
oper- 
ated, 
hours 

Area 
irri- 

acres 

Duty  of 

water 
per  acre, 
acre-ft. 

Cost  of 

plant 

per  acre 

Annual  cost  of  water 

Per 

ac.  ft. 

Per  acre 

Per 

acre-ft.  per 
ft.  lift 

Minimum 

Maximum 

29.0 
208.0 

326 
1,910 

46 
300 

0  36 
2  23 

$18  75 
144  21 

$4  04 
56  34 

.«5  34 
33  08 

$0  125 
378 

Pumping  plants  numl^ered  59  to  72  are  scattered  throughout  San 
Joaquin  Valley.    Table  34  sunnnarizes  the  data  for  these  plants. 

TABLE  34     SUMMARY  OF  PUMPING  PLANTS  TESTED  IN  SAN  JOAQUIN  VALLEY. 


Minimum- 
Maximum. 


Time 

Area 

Duty  of 

Lift, 

oper- 

irri- 

water 

feet 

ated, 

gated, 

per  acre. 

liours 

acres 

acre-ft. 

10.5 

619 

6 

1   23 

249.9 

5,830 

145 

4.16 

Cost  of 

plant 
per   acre 


$13  30 
179  30 


.\iinual  cost  of  water 


Per 

ac.  ft. 


$1    56 
18  42 


Per  acre 


$6  96 
48  08 


Per 

acrc-ft.  per 
ft.  lift 


$0  040 
301 


Cost  of  pumped  water  for  various  crops — Only  foui-  plants  in-igating  citrus 
trees  were  tested,  but  thes(^  should  give  a  fair  idea  of  the  cost  of  water  foi- 
oranges  in  Central  C'alifornia. 

TABLE  36     SUMMARY  OF  PUMPING  PLANTS  IRRIGATING  CITRUS  TREES. 


Lift, 
feet 

'I'iriie 

iipcr- 
alcd, 
hours 

A  rea 
irri- 
gated, 
acres 

Duty  of 

water 
per  acre, 
:icre-ft. 

Cost  of 

plant 
per   acre 

.\iiinia 

cost    "f   \ 

atcr 

Per 

ac.  ft. 

Per  aric 

Per 

acre-ft.  per 
ft.  lift 

Minimum _ 

Maximum 

81.0 
249.9 

2,240 
4,405 

S  50 
40.00 

2  30 

3 .  85 

$35  25 
179  30 

$4  21 
18  42 

$16  22 

48  08 

$0  040 
227 

55 

hceu 
tests 

;ating 
table 
■vhich 


VTRAL 


Per 

;-ft.  per 
t.  lift 


$0  052 
06O 
061 


t  full 
»lants 


iping 
?d  to 
night 
iping 
ith  a 
1  the 
lount 
form 
such 
total 
and 
not. 
vater 
lules 
nt  is 

in  is 
ed  if 
niers 
ibors 
nofit 
ities. 
ated 
s   of 

how 
-ater 
alla- 
ial.* 

ng. 


TABLE  32.     COST  OF  WATER  FOR  IRRIGATION  IN  CALIFORNIA. 
Private  Electric  Pumping  Plants  in  Central  Calirornia.    1923. 


San  Jose 

San  Jo9e 

San  Jose 

Los  Gatos - 

Santa  Clara 

San  Jose 

Mountain  View., 

Santa  Clara 

Santa  Clara 

San  Jose 

Campbell 

San  Jose 

San  Jose 

Cupertino 

Santa  Clara 

Cupertino 

Cupertino 

Cupertino 

Los  Gatoe 

Santa  Clara 

Santa  Clara 

Santa  Clara 

Santa  Clara 

Morgan  Hill 

San  Martin 

San  Martin 

Gilroy 

Gilroy 

Gilroy 

Wataonville 

Watsonville 

Watsonville 

Chualar 

Modesto - 

Turlock 

Turlock 

Delhi.. _ 

Chowchilla 

Cbowcbtlla 

Visalia 

Exeter 

Exeter 

Lemon  Cove 

Linilsay 

Porterville 

Tulare 

McFarlanil 


1911 
1919 
1912 


1905 
1918 


1920 
1920 
1920 


1917 
1922 


1922 
1023 
1920 
1914 
1921 
1917 
1920 
1923 
1919 
1919 


1923 
1923 
1923 
1922 
1920 


1909 
1922 
1922 
1923 


30 

15 

35 

20 

40 

60 

20 

25 

50 

60 

75 

40 

30 

50 

75 

60 

75 

35 

75 
100 
100 

50 

30 

40 

40 

15 

20 

20 

30 
7H 

15 

20 

20 

20 

20 

16 

15 
3 

10 

10 

3 
10 

S 
15 

15 
10 


52 
404 


210 
412 


495 
265 


342 
254 
281 
912 
1,069 
1,001 
665 


300 
355 


150 


170 
Lake 
154 
170 
270 
River 


Canal 
74 
108 
65 
139 
151 
133 
300 
427 


Pump 


363 
461 
937 
638 
997 
738 
371 
698 
740 

1,106 
798 

1,910 
326 
368 
533 


186 

286 

911 

532 

481 

339 

806 

3,910 

1,607 

3,330 

4,140 

619 

858 

1,084 

872 

1,638 

2,240 

3025 

4,405 

3,030 

3,350 

5.830 


29.0 
39.2 
48-0 
70.0 
71.0 
74.0 
84.0 
85.4 
88.0 
103.8 
131  5 
139.0 
144.5 
149.0 
162.0 
173.0 


195.0 
208.0 


'200.0 
'200.0 
60.0 
207.0 
53.0 
67.9 
41.0 
43  5 
45.0 
20.2 
40  0 
48  3 
46.2 
10.5 
27  3 
34  a 
23.4 
25  8 
56  0 
28.0 
48  5 
81.0 
104  2 
128  0 
249.9 
45  0 
90.0 


1.98 
1.12 
2.62 
0.48 
3.20 
1.28 
0  70 
1.58 
1.07 
0.78 
2.00 
0.86 
0.29 
0.99 
2.13 
0.76 
2.80 
0.42 
1.68 
1.73 
0.88 
0.74 
1.38 
0.48 
2.11 
1.03 
1.12 
1.39 
1.36 
0.81 
1-09 
1.93 
2.18 
4.18 
1.90 
1.56 
2  46 
0.45 
0.46 
1.41 
0.27 
0.11 
0.61 
0.17 
0.22 
1.06 
0.41 


.Acreage  irrigated 


48 

50 

90 

60 
280 
82 
57 
76 


300 
170 


Kind  of  crops 


Prunes 

Nursery... 

Prunes 

Orchard 

Pears,  plums 

Fruit 

Fruit.. .-- 

Pears,  plums 

Prunes,  apricots.. 
Prunes,  peaches. , 
Prunes,  apricots-. 
Peaches,  apricots. 
Prunes,  apricots.. 
Prunes,  apricots.. 


Orchard 

Orchard 

Prunes,  apricots- 
Prunes,  peaches. 
Prunes,  peaches. 
Prunes,  apricots.. 

Fruit.. 

Prunes — - 

Berries 


Prunes.. --. 

Prunes 

Prunes,  altalfa... 

Truck,  alfalta 

Apples,  truck 

Apples,  pears 

Apples,  apricots.. 

AKalla 

Orchard,  alfalfa. . 


Truck 

Peaches,  apricots. 

Prunes,  aUaUa 

Grapes 

Oranges 

Oranges 

Oranges 

Oranges -. 

.Alfalfa 

.Mfalfa,  grapes 


13 

a 


1.67 
0.52 
1.33 
0.50 
1.88 
2.23 
0.86 
0.64 
0  81 
0.81 
0  66 
0  71 
0  82 
0,36 

'0  50 
0.57 

'1.00 

'0.60 
0  44 
0.78 
0.44 
0.43 

'1.40 
2.12 
0  865 
0.32 
0.95 
1.74 
2  20 
0  62 
0.32 
1.046 
5.09 
3.88 


1  36 

1  87 
1.23 

2  61 

3  85 
3.08 
2  30 
3.48 

4  16 


Cost  of  plant 


SI, 500 
1,370 
3,300 

'2,000 
f),535 
6.400 
2.800 
7,434 
5,000 
4,450 

12,000 
4,100 
8,220 
7,800 

'8,000 
6,050 

'8,000 
4.900 

15.400 
'15.000 

16.400 

'9,000 
3.250 
4,400 
4.478 
3.130 
2,700 
2,365 
2.710 
400 
1,000 
2,405 
2,350 
3.403 
1.500 
1.500 
1,200 
600 
1,300 
1,350 
1,300 
1.521 
1,110 
1.900 
4.500 
1,130 
1,450 


$18  75 
21  08 

41  25 
26  67 
72  61 

133  33 
56  00 
82  60 
65  00 
74  17 

42  86 
50  00 

144  21 
102  63 


51  33 
88  25 
85  5b 

100  00 
70  65 

122  22 
59  71 
62  60 
!I6  43 
38  80 
67  75 
6  45 
10  42 
19  40 
16  78 
23  48 


100  00 
41  95 
24  55 
43  33 

179  30 

35  25 
95  00 

150  00 
13  30 

36  25 


Annual  costs  for  plant 


S284  52 
129  00 
306  60 
199  73 
494  27 
586  00 
269  58 
230  76 
439  17 
417  50 
1,127  74 
470  63 
434  98 
338  08 
503  U 
401  77 
847  02 
439  17 
1.267  17 
1,088  06 
1,160  44 
375  04 
493  53 
874  40 
487  65 
134  55 
239  05 
432  85 

404  00 
115  30 
161  00 
398  10 

1,200  04 
451  04 
481  93 
446  46 
121  42 

71  53 
202  22 
144  65 
185  94 

90  59 
317  99 
206  15 

405  93 
500  77 
457  61 


J32  80 
14  52 

18  16 

37  48 

25  52 
39  88 
29  52 
14  84 
27  92 
29  60 
44  24 

31  92 
76  40 

13  04 

14  72 
21  32 
47  20 

35  60 

38  08 

36  72 
43  20 
24  92 
24  00 
76  40 
14  76 

7  41 
11  40 
36  44 
21  28 

19  24 
13  56 

32  24 
1,56  40 

64  28 

133  20 
165  60 

24  76 

26  24 
43  36 
34  88 

65  52 
89  60 

121  00 
170  20 
145  20 

134  00 
233  20 


Fixed 
charges 


i90  00 
82  20 
198  00 
120  00 
392  10 
384  00 
168  00 
446  04 
300  00 

267  00 
720  00 
246  00 
493  20 
468  00 
480  00 
363  00 
480  00 
294  00 
924  00 
900  00 
924  00 
540  00 
195  00 
264  00 

268  68 
187  80 
162  00 
141  90 
162  60 

24  00 
60  00 
144  30 
141  00 
204  18 
90  00 

90  00 
72  00 
36  00 
78  00 
81  00 
78  00 

91  44 
81  60 

114  00 
270  00 
07  80 
87  00 


■'S 


SI35  00 
123  30 
297  00 
ISO  00 
588  15 
576  00 
252  00 
669  06 
4,W  00 
400  50 
1,080  00 
369  00 
7.39  80 
702  00 
720  00 
544  50 
720  00 
411  00 
1,386  00 
1,350  00 
1,386  00 
810  00 
292  50 
396  00 
403  02 
281  70 
243  00 
212  86 
243  90 
36  00 
90  00 
216  45 
211  50 
306  27 
135  00 
135  00 
108  00 
51  00 
117  00 
131  50 
117  00 
137  16 
126  90 
171  00 
405  00 
101  70 
130  50 


.\nnual  cost  per  acre-foot  pumped 


$2  12 

3  78 
2  88 
5  28 

2  92 

5  48 

6  24 

4  71 

7  04 

8  55 
6  10 
8  14 
0  29 

12  52 

8  58 
11  75 

3  08 
14  12 

9  52 

8  24 
14  65 

9  69 


11  45 

7  51 

8  41 


4  59 
3  57 

5  23 

3  07 

1  68 
0  80 
0  91 
0  83 

0  96 

2  96 

4  78 

1  41 

5  04 

4  08 

2  06 

3  35 

5  88 

1  69 

2  75 


SO  24 
0  43 
0  17 
0  99 
0  15 
0  37 
0  68 
0  30 
0  45 
0  61 
0  24 

0  65 

1  63 
0  48 
0  22 
0  62 

0  17 

1  14 
0  29 
0  28 
0  54 
0  64 


1  00 
0  23 
0  45 
0  43 
0  34 
0  2t 
0  60 
0  44 
0  25 
0  22 
0  11 
0  25 
0  31 

0  20 

1  08 
1  02 

0  34 

1  78 
4  04 
0  78 

2  86 
2  10 

0  45 

1  40 


$0  67 

2  42 

1  86 

3  17 

2  31 

3  59 

3  89 
9  10 

4  81 

5  47 

3  89 

4  25 
10  53 
17  33 

7  32 

10  62 
1  75 
9  46 

6  94 
6  81 

11  67 
13  95 


3  45 

4  14 
11  73 

6  09 
1  34 
1  85 

0  74 

1  95 
1  11 
0  20 
0  36 
0  17 
0  17 

0  57 

1  49 

1  »( 
0  79 

2  U 
4  12 

0  55 

1  85 

3  91 
0  23 
0  52 


23 


$1  01 

3  63 

2  79 

4  76 

3  47 

5  39 
5  83 

13  66 

7  21 

8  20 

5  81 

6  38 
15  82 
26  01 
10  97 
15  94 

2  62 

14  18 
10  40 
10  22 
17  49 
20  92 


5  18 

6  21 
17  60 

9  13 
2  01 
2  77 

1  11 

2  92 

1  67 
0  30 
0  51 
0  25 
0  25 

0  85 

2  23 

2  77 

1  18 

3  17 
6  IS 
0  82 

2  77 
5  86 
0  34 
0  78 


Annual  cost  of  vater 


«3  37 
7  84 

5  84 
11  03 

6  64 

11  24 

12  75 

18  67 

14  70 

17  36 

12  18 

15  07 
26  74 
39  01 

19  77 

28  31 

5  87 

29  44 

20  21 

18  74 
32  68 
31  25 

'12  59 

17  63 

13  95 
26  46 

18  54 

6  43 

7  60 

5  28 

8  59 
4  99 
2  20 
1  45 
1  41 

1  39 

2  01 

6  27 

8  57 

2  93 

9  99 

14  30 

3  66 
8  98 

13  84 
2  48 

4  93 


S4  04 

10  26 

7  70 
14  20 

8  85 
14  S3 
16  64 
27  77 
19  51 
22  83 

16  07 
19  32 

37  27 
56  34 
27  09 

38  93 
7  02 

38  90 
27  15 
25  .55 

44  35 

45  20 
'15  61 
21  08 
18  09 
38  19 
24  63 

7  77 

9  45 
6  02 

10  ,54 

6  10 
2  40 
1  81 
1  58 

1  56 

2  58 

7  76 
10  41 

3  72 
12  10 
18  42 

4  21 
10  83 

17  75 
2  71 

5  45 


SS  63 

4  08 

7  77 

5  51 

12  30 
25  08 
10  96 

10  OS 

11  90 
14  06 

8  04 

10  70 
21  92 
14  05 

9  89 

16  13 
5  87 

14  72 
8  89 
14  61 
14  3S 

13  43 

17  62 
37  38 

12  13 
8  47 

17  61 

11  18 
16  72 

2  75 
2  75 
5  24 
U  19 
5  63 


25  28 

11  65 
5  48 

12  28 
37  32 
14  09 
27  67 
31  83 

8  63 
20  52 


$6  73 

5  34 
10  21 

7  10 
16  64 
33  OS 
14  32 

14  98 

15  80 

18  50 

10  61 
13  71 
30  57 

20  27 
13  55 

22  20 
7  62 

19  45 

11  95 
19  93 
19  32 

19  43 

21  86 
41  70 
15  73 

12  22 

23  40 

13  ,52 

20  79 
3  13 
3  38 

6  41 
12  21 

7  02 


31  28 
14  IS 

6  96 
14  88 
48  08 
16  22 
33  37 
40  84 

9  43 


Per  acre-foot 
per  foot  lift 


$0  116 
0  200 
0  122 
0  158 
0  092 
0  152 
0  152 
0  218 
0  167 
0  167 
0  093 
0  108 
0  185 
0  262 
0  122 
0  164 


0  131 

0  097 


0  163 
0  1.56 
0  210 
0  083 
0  263 
0  389 
0  452 
0  148 
0  169 
0  261 
0  215 
0  103 
0  018 
0  138 
0  052 
0  041 
0  086 
0  243 
0  153 
0  105 
0  206 
0  176 
0  033 
0  070 
0  055 
0  055 
0  055 


37104— facing  p.  54 


COST  OF   WATKK   TO   IRHKJATORS. 


55 


Tho  cost  of  iiiiiialioii  wnltT  tor  (Iccidiioiis  tn^os  has  ali'^ady  Ix'on 
shown  in  Table  .S3,  for  Santa  ( 'hiia  \'all(\v.  Tlicrc  were  not  cnoufiih  tests 
made  in  other  districts  to  permit  fair  comparisons. 

In  the  summary  of  Table  30  tho  cost  of  pumped  water  for  initiating 
altalfa  in  lower  Sacramento  X'allev  was  discussed.  The  followiiifi  table 
will  i!;iv(>  sununaiy  of  three  typical  plants  shown  in  Table  ;^2,  which 
irrigate  alfalfa. 


TABLE  36     SUMMARY  OF  TYPICAL  PUMPING  PLANTS  IRRIGATING  ALFALFA  IN  CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA. 


Plant  No.  r,S. 
Plant  Xo.  71. 
Plant  Xo.  72. 


Time 

.\rpa 

Duty  of 

Lift, 

oper- 

irri- 

water 

feet 

ated. 

gated. 

per  acre. 

hours 

acres 

acre-ft. 

46.2 

3,910 

140 

5  09 

45  0 

3,350 

85 

3  48 

90.0 

5,830 

40 

4    16 

Cost  of 

plant 

per  acre 


$16  78 
13  30 
.36  25 


Annual  cost  of  water 


Per 
ac.  ft. 


$2  40 
2  71 
5  45 


Per  acre 


$12  21 

9  43 

22  68 


Per 

acre-ft.  per 

ft.  lift 


$0  052 
060 
061 


These  are  excellent  illustrations  of  plants  designetl  to  operate  at  full 
capacity.  The  fixed  charges  are  reduced  to  a  minimum  as  the  plants 
irrigate  larger  acreages  and  operate  a  greater  number  of  hours. 

Reducing  overhead  expenses — IVIany  farmers  do  not  utilize  their  pumping 
plants  fully.  Either  the  acreage  under  irrigation  is  small  compared  to 
the  pump  capacity  or  the  plant  is  run  only  a  portion  of  the  time  it  might 
be  operated.  The  irrigator  may  find  it  easier  to  run  a  large  pumping 
unit  for  a  few  hours  rather  than  to  irrigate  the  same  acreage  with  a 
smaller  plant  operating  perhaps  several  days.  But  the  interest  on  the 
capital  investetl  in  the  excessively  large  plant  and  the  increased  amount 
that  must  be  charged  to  depreciation  and  other  fixed  charges,  form 
considerable  items  in  the  total  annual  cost  of  irrigation  water.  In  such 
cases  the  fixed  charges  generally  amount  to  over  50  per  cent  of  the  total 
annual  cost.  Fixed  charges  such  as  interest,  taxes,  insurance,  and 
depreciation  go  on  continuously,  whether  the  plant  is  operated  or  not. 
Some  irrigators  fail  to  realize  this  antl  measure  the  cost  of  pumped  water 
by  the  amount  of  their  oil  or  electric  power  bills.  Many  power  schedules 
have  a  demand  or  minimum  charge  which  is  paid  whether  the  plant  is 
run  few  or  many  hours. 

In  cases  where  a  larger  pumping  plant  has  been  installed  than  is 
needed  to  supply  the  acreage  irrigated,  the  situation  may  be  remedied  if 
more  land  can  be  brought  under  irrigation.  In  some  instances  farmers 
have  increased  the  numl)er  of  acres  covered  by  supplying  neighbor.^ 
with  water.  However,  care  should  be  taken  not  to  sell  water  for  profit 
as  private  jilants  entering  such  service  may  be  declared  public  utilities. 
In  some  sections  of  the  state  mutual  water  companies  or  unincorporated 
associations  have  been  formed  to  i-educe  the  overhead  expenses  of 
))um|)ing. 

The  value  of  the  crop  grown  is  the  potent  factor  which  determines  how- 
high  an  irrigator  can  afford  to  pump  water.  However,  before  water 
can  l)e  pumped  economically  for  the  irrigation  of  any  crop,  the  in.stalla- 
tion  of  the  right  type  of  pumping  plant  for  local  conditions  is  (essential.* 

*Farmer«.'  nnllefin  Xo    1404.  TV  S    T)    A.,  Pumping  from  Well.',  for  IrriRafion.  by  Paul  A.  Ewing. 


54 

Descrip 
showing  1 
in  Santa 
state,  for 
affect  the 

The  mi 
used  for 
those  in  ( 
1923. 

Simim< 
Fair  con 
difficult 
and  num 
plant  effi 
Three  we 
per  cent 

Plants 
water  foi 
tion  of  CO 
of  these 

TAI 


Minimum- 
Maximum. 


Punipi 
Joaquin 

TABLE 


Minimum.- 
Maximum,- 


Cost  oj 
trees  wei 
oranges 

TAI 


Minimum. . 
Maximum. 


Cost  ok  watkh  to  irrigators. 


o;> 


The  cost  ot  inijiatioii  wiitcr  lor  deciduous  trees  luis  already  been 
shown  ill  Table  X],  for  Santa  (Mara  ^'alley.  There  were  not  onousW  tests 
made  in  other  districts  to  permit  lair  comparisons. 

In  the  summary  of  Table  'M)  the  cost  of  pumped  water  for  irrifiating 
alfalfa  in  lower  Saci'amento  N'alley  was  discussed.  The  foUowinji;  table 
will  give  summary  of  three  typical  plants  shown  in  Table  32,  which 
irrigate  alfalfa. 


TABLE  36     SUMMARY  OF  TYPICAL  PUMPING  PLANTS  IRRIGATING  ALFALFA  IN  CENTRAL 

CALIFORNIA. 


Time 

.Area 

Duty  of 

Lift, 

oper- 

irri- 

water 

feet 

ated, 

gated. 

per  aere, 

- 

hours 

acres 

aere-ft. 

Plant  No.  58.  ,  . 

46.2 

3.910 

140 

5.09 

Plant  No.  71... 

45.0 

3,3.o0 

85 

3.48 

Plant  No.  72..  _ 

90  0 

5,830 

40 

4.16 

Cost  of 

plant 
per   acre 


$16  78 
13  30 
36  25 


.\nnual  cost  of  water 


Per 

ac.  ft. 


$2  40 
2  71 
5  45 


Per  acre 


$12  21 

9  43 

22  68 


Per 

acre-ft.  per 

ft.  lift 


$0  052 

060 
061 


These  are  excellent  illustrations  of  plants  designed  to  operate  at  full 
capacity.  The  fixed  charges  are  reduced  to  a  minimum  as  the  plants 
irrigate  larger  acreages  and  operate  a  greater  number  of  hours. 

Reducing  overhead  expenses — Many  farmers  do  not  utilize  their  pumping 
plants  fully.  Either  the  acreage  under  irrigation  is  small  compared  to 
the  pump  capacity  or  the  plant  is  run  only  a  portion  of  the  time  it  might 
be  op(M-ated.  The  irrigator  may  find  it  easier  to  run  a  large  pumping 
unit  for  a  few  hours  rather  than  to  irrigate  the  same  acreage  with  a 
smallcM-  plant  operating  perhaps  several  days.  But  the  interest  on  the 
capital  invested  in  the  excessively  large  plant  and  the  increased  amount 
that  must  be  charged  to  depreciation  and  other  fixed  charges,  form 
considerable  items  in  the  total  annual  cost  of  irrigation  water.  In  such 
cases  the  fixed  charges  generally  amount  to  over  50  per  cent  of  the  total 
annual  cost.  Fixed  charg(>s  such  as  interest,  taxes,  insurance,  and 
depreciation  go  on  continuously,  whether  the  plant  is  operated  or  not. 
Some  irrigators  fail  to  realize  this  and  measure  the  cost  of  pumped  water 
l)v  the  amount  of  their  oil  or  electric  power  bills.  Many  power  schedules 
have  a  demand  or  minimum  charge  which  is  paid  wlietlier  the  plant  is 
run  few  or  many  hours. 

In  cases  where  a  larger  pumping  plant  has  b(>eii  installed  than  is 
needed  to  supply  the  acreage  irrigated,  the  situation  may  be  remedied  if 
nu)re  land  can  be  l)roiight  under  irrigation.  In  .some  instances  farmers 
have  increased  the  number  of  acres  covered  by  supplying  neighi)ors 
with  water.  However,  care  should  be  taken  not  to  sell  water  for  profit 
as  private  plants  entering  such  service  may  be  declared  public  utilities. 
In  some  sections  of  the  state  mutual  water  companies  or  unincorporated 
associations  have  been  formed  to  reduce  the  overhead  expenses  of 
pumping. 

The  value  of  the  crop  grown  is  the  potent  factor  which  dettMinines  how 
high  an  irrigator  can  afford  to  puini)  water.  However,  before  water 
can  be  pumped  (M-onomically  for  the  irrigation  of  any  crop,  the  installa- 
tion of  the  right  type  of  pumping  plant  for  local  contlitions  is  es.sential.* 

♦Farmers"  Bulletin  No.  1404,  U.  S.  D.  A.,  Pumpinjt  from  Well.s  for  Irrigation,  by  Paul  A.  Ewing. 


56  DEPARTMENT  OF  PUBLIC  WORKS. 


CAPITAL  COST  AND  VALUE  OF  IRRIGATION  WATER. 

Cost  of  irrigation  systems — Under  many  irrigation  districts  the  cost  of 
developing  water  and  building  irrigation  works  is  shown  by  the  total 
authorized  bonded  inde])tcdness.  However,  before  attempting  to  com- 
pare the  bonded  cost  per  acre  of  two  districts  it  would  be  necessary 
to  make  a  detailed  study  of  the  conditions  in  each  case.  The  bonds  for 
one  district  may  cover  a  drainage  system,  a  pipe  or  lined  canal  distribu- 
tion system  delivering  water  to  every  10  acres,  and  an  expensive  pumping 
equipment,  while  the  other  extreme  may  exist  where  the  district  bonds 
only  cover  a  gravity  system,  without  provisions  for  drainage  or  storage, 
and  with  unlined  canals  distributing  water  to  every  160  acres. 

In  Table  8,  under  column  18,  the  total  authorized  bonded  debt  per 
acre  is  shown.  For  northern  California  it  varies  from  $12.63  to  .186.53 
per  acre.  The  minimum  in  central  California  is  $3.84  per  acre,  while  the 
maximum  reaches  $107.92  per  acre.  In  southern  California  the  figures 
range  from  $26.50  to  $100.22  per  acre. 

The  par  value  of  the  capital  stock  of  mutual  water  companies  ma}'  show 
approximately  the  cost  of  developing  water  and  building  irrigation 
woi'ks.  However,  in  some  instances  part  of  the  construction  cost  was 
met  by  a  bond  issue,  while  in  other  cases  the  capital  stock  covered  com- 
missions to  promoters,  profit  to  land  agents,  or  cost  of  so-called  water 
rights  in  addition  to  cost  of  works.  In  southern  California  the  par 
value  of  stock  per  acre  varies  from  $5  to  $400,  but  the  more  common 
amounts  are  $50  and  $100. per  acre.  For  other  sections  of  the  state 
the  par  value  of  capital  stock  varies  from  $1  to  $100  per  acre. 

The  investment  in  private  electric  pumping  plants  in  Santa  Clai-a 
Valley  ranged  from  $18.75  to  $144.21  per  acre,  with  an  average  of  $71.39 
per  acre.  Plants  tested  in  San  Joaquin  Valley  showed  costs  ranging 
from  $13.30  to  $179.30  per  acre.  In  the  Sacramento  Vallev  the  average 
cost  of  plants  tested  is  $63.04  per  acre,  with  range  from  $5.>7  to  ,$208.33 
per  acre. 

Market  value  of  irrigation  ivater — Perhaps  one  of  the  best  indications 
of  the  market  value  of  irrigation  water  may  be  obtained  from  the  selling 
price  of  shares  of  stock  in  mutual  water  companies  organized  to  deliver 
water  solely  to  their  stockholders.  In  addition  to  the  cost  of  developing 
watei",  the  market  value  is  influenced  by  the  sui)i)ly  of  and  demand  foi* 
the  shares  of  stock,  the  appurtenance  of  stock,  reliability  of  water  sup{)ly, 
priority  of  rights,  indebtedness,  and  annual  cost  of  operation  and  main- 
tenance, as  well  as  the  value  of  agricultural  crops  which  may  be  produced 
by  irrigation,  depending  on  the  climate  and  locality. 

Probabl}'  nowhere  in  the  West  has  the  vahie  of  irrigation  water  Ijecome 
better  established  than  in  southern  California.  The  market  value  of 
stock  of  29  of  the  78  mutual  water  companies  shown  in  Table  18,  falls 
])elow  $100  per  acre;  24  have  a  market  vahu>  of  .$200  oi'  mor(\  while  9 
reach  $300  or  more. 

The  late  C.  E.  Tait,  Senior  Irrigation  Engineer  of  the  U.  S.  Bureau  of 
Public  Roads,  made  studies  of  the  value  of  water  in  southern  California 
covering  many  years,  and  was  of  tlu^  ojiinion  that  "gravity  water  as  a 
class  has  a  market  at  $1500  to  .$2000  per  miner's  inch*  or  its  etjuivalent 
amount,  and  under  the  most  favorable  combination  of  circumstances 

*Fifty  miner's  inche8=l  ctuhic  foot  jier  socoiitl. 


COST  OF  WATKK   TO  IRRIGATORS.  '•)  t 

$2o00  p<M-  miner's  inch,  wliil(>  pninpcd  water  is  worth  -SKHH)  to  SloOO  for 
the  same  amount." 

There  are  several  methods  of  cletermininfj;  tlie  market  value  of  water 
per  miner's  inch.  Perhaps  the  most  common  way  is  as  follows:  Under 
many  mutual  water  comioanies  a  share  of  water  stock  is  entitled  to  a 
definite  portion  of  a  miner's  inch  and  this  usually  ranges  from  one-tenth 
to  one  miner's  inch  per  share,  where  one  share  serves  an  acre  of  land. 
Thus  the  market  value  of  a  miner's  inch  of  water  may  he  determined 
hy  dividing-  the  market  value  of  stock  per  share,  by  the  amount  of  miner's 
inches  eacli  share  is  entitled  to.  For  example:  If  a  share  of  water  stock 
will  sell  for  $300  and  each  share  is  entitled  to  one-fifth  of  a  miner's  inch, 
the  market  value  of  one  miner's  inch  would  be  SI 500. 

The  anK)unt  of  water  to  which  each  share  is  entitled,  is  not  so  easy  to 
determine  for  some  companies,  while  in  others  a  shareholder  may  not 
receive  all  the  water  his  stock  calls  for.  For  these  reasons  the  market 
value  of  irrijiation  water  per  acre-foot  delivered  may  be  a  better  means 
of  showino-  the  value  of  water.  This  may  be  determined  by  divitling  the 
market  value  of  stock  per  acre  by  the  average  duty  of  water  in  acre-feet 
{ler  acre  for  the  system.  Using  the  above  method,  the  market  value  of 
iirigation  water  per  acre-foot  delivered  for  a  few  representative  com- 
panies in  southern  California  for  the  year  1922  will  l)e  shown.  A  syst(>ni 
delivering  4.3  acre-feet  per  acre  from  the  Colorado  River  with  a  market 
\-alue  of  stock  of  S35.00  per  acre  has  a  market  value  per  acre-foot  of  S8.14. 
Of  the  companies  having  a  market  value  of  stock  of  SlOO  per  acre,  the 
duty  ranges  from  O.oO  to  2.00  acre-feet  per  acre;  hence  the  market  value 
per  acre-foot  varies  from  SoO.OO  to  S178.57.  Another  company  having 
a  market  value  of  stock  of  $250.00  per  acre  and  a  duty  of  water  of  2 
acre-feet  per  acre  would  have  a  market  value  per  acre-foot  of  $125.00. 
A  company  irrigating  about  4000  acres  of  citrus  trees,  using  1.37  acre- 
feet  of  water  per  acre,  and  with  a  market  value  of  stock  $300  per  acre, 
has  irrigation  water  worth  $218.98  per  acre-foot  of  water. 

The  enhanced  value  of  land  due  to  the  intensive  cultivation  possible 
when  water  is  used  for  irrigation,  varies  widely  throughout  Ctdifornia. 
In  some  sections  of  the  state  where  rainfall  is  plentiful,  limited  crops 
may  l)e  profitably  grown  without  irrigation;  while  in  other  parts  of  the 
sttde  with  very  little  rainfall,  irrigated  land  worth  several  hundretl 
dollais  an  acre  would  l)e  i)ractically  worthless  if  deprived  of  its  only 
available  water  supply.  There  are  many  instances  where  the  increase  in 
the  value  of  land  lias  amounted  to  several  times  the  cost  of  making  the 
water  available  for  its  irrigation.  From  the  standpoint  of  the  irrigator, 
the  enhaneetl  value  of  land,  due  to  irrigation,  is  largely  determined  by  the 
inci-eased  value  of  ci'ojis  grown  and  by  his  investment  in  tlu^  water 
system. 

SUMMARY. 

Types  of  enterprises — Four  kinds  of  enterprises.  Public  Utilities.  Irriga- 
tion Districts,  Mutual  Water  Companies,  and  Private  Pumping  Plants, 
have  l)een  considered  in  this  report  on  the  cost  of  irrigation  water  to 
farnuMs.  Cost  data  for  these  types  of  enterprises  are  not  always  com- 
parable as  their  forms  of  organization  are  different,  and  comparisons 
between  two  systems  of  the  same  type  of  enterprise  are  often  difficult  to 
make  because  factors  atTecting  the  cost  of  water  have  a  wide  lange  of 
variation. 


58 


DEPARTMENT  OF  PI'BI.IC  WORKS. 


Annual  cost  of  irrigation  watcr~Fov  public  utility  wator  companies  tho 
miniinum  cost  of  irrigation  water  per  acre  is  SO.oti  and  the  niaxiinuni 
$32.67.  The  cost  per  acre-foot  varies  from  $0.30  to  $25.14.  These 
figures  include  interest  on  capital  invested. 

For  inigation  districts  the  lowest  cost  of  water  per  acre  is  .$0.90, 
and  the  higliest  $24.69.  The  mininuini  cost  per  arec-foot  is  $0.37  and  the 
nuiximum  $22.19.  These  costs  do  not  include  interest  on  retired  l)onds. 
With  the  exception  of  two  special  districts  the  inteicst  on  retired  bonds 
amounts  to  only  a  few  cents. 

Under  mutual  water  companies  the  lowest  cost  of  water  per  acre  is 
$0.83,  the  highest  $60.07.  The  cost  per  acre-foot  varies  from  $0.40  to 
$50.91.     Interest  on  capital  invested  is  included  in  these  figures. 

For  the  private  electric  pumicing  plants  tested  in  Sacramento  Valley 
in  1922  the  cost  of  water  per  acre  ranges  from  $3.01  to  $45.63.  The 
lowest  cost  per  acre-foot  is  $2.81,  the  highest  $55.31. 

The  plants  tested  in  central  California  in  1923  show  costs  varving 
from  $3.13  to  $48.08  per  acre.  The  cost  of  water  per  acre-foot  ranges 
fi'om  $1.56  to  $56.34.  The  lowest  cost  per  acre-foot  per  foot  lift  is  ^OM, 
while  the  highest  is  $0,601. 

Annual  cost  of  icater  for  various  crops — The  following  tal)l(>s  give 
summaries  of  the  cost  of  wat(>r  under  different  types  of  enterprises  in 
California  for  various  crops: 


TABLE  37— SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  FOR  CITRUS  TREES. 


Annual  cost  of  irrigation  water 

Types  of  entfrprise 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Public  utilitie.s... .    . 

$5  00 

90 

1  84 

16  22 

$32  67 
24  69 
60  07 
48  08 

$1   47 

60 

55 

4  21 

$25  14 

16  35 
50  91 
18  42 

Irrigation  districts 

Mutual  water  companies 

Private  pumping  plants' 

•The  figures  given  for  private  pumping  plants  are  not  comparable  with  other  enterprises  as  they 
represent  only  a  few  plants  in  San  Joaquin  N'alley  and  are  for  1923  while  the  others  are  for  1922. 


TABLE  38     SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  FOR  DECIDUOUS  TREES  AND  VINES. 


Annual  cost  of  irrigation  water 

Types  of  enterprise 

Per  acre 

Per  acre-foot 

Minimum 

Maximun^ 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Public  utilities.  _ 

Irrigation  districts                                   

$0  56 

90 

83 

5  34 

$25   14 
24  69 
41   28- 
33,08 

$0  30 

53 

40 

4  04 

$25  14 
22   19 

.Mutual  water  companies                     . 

27  67 

Private  pumping  plants'.  .                    ._ 

56  34 

'The  figures  shown  for  private  pumping  plants  are  for  Santa  Clara  Nnllej-  in  1923  and  are  not  com- 
parable with  other  enler|)rises. 


COST  OF  \v\ri;K   lo  ihkigatoks. 


59 


PLATE  IX. 


Fr;.    1.      .Murray   J)ani.   lielow   t?an   L>iegf)  ;   an   impoi-laiil   uiilt    in   ilu'    t_'u.\anuica 

irrigation  system. 


".^.Vi. 


./f<^ 


-* 


^^. 


Fk;.    L'.      <'ontoiir    irric^al  i,  .n    ,.i    cUrii.s    orchard    in    tlio    Vi.sla    section    of 

Sun  Diego  Co\inly. 


no  DEPARTMENT  OF  I'l'lJlJC  WORKS. 

TABLE  39     SUMMARY  OF  ANNUAL  COST  OF  WATER  FOR  ALFALFA. 


Types  of  cntpriiriso 


Public  utilities 

Irrigation  districts 

.Mutual  water  companies 
Private  pumping  plants'. 


Annual  cost  of  irrigation  water 


Per  acre 


Miainiuni 


$0  56 

90 

S3 

9  53 


Maximum 


S25  14 
21  00 
41  28 
45  63 


Per  acre-foot 


Minimuii 


$0  30 

53 

40 

2  91 


Maximum 


$2. 


14 

S  !)() 

16  82 

19  09 


'These  figures  are  for  17  tested  pumping  plants  in  Sacramento  Valley  and  arc  not  comparable  with 
other  enterprises. 

Cost  of  irrigation  enterprises — Under  irrigation  disti'icts  the  authorized 
l)onded  debt  per  acre  has  a  wide  variation.  For  northern  Cahfornia  it 
varies  from  S12.63  to  S86.53  per  acre.  The  mininuim  in  central  Cah- 
fornia is  $3.84  per  acre,  while  the  maximum  reaches  .$107.92  per  acre. 
In  southern  California  the  figures  range  from  $26.50  to  $100.22  per 
acre. 

The  par  value  of  mutual  water  companies  stock  may  indicate  the  cost 
of  the  main  irrigation  system.  In  southern  California  this  value  per 
acre  varies  from  $5  to  $400,  but  the  more  common  amounts  are  $50  and 
$100  per  acre.  For  other  sections  of  the  state  the  par  value  of  capital 
stock  varies  from  $1  and  $100  per  acre. 

For  private  electric  pumping  plants  tested  in  Sacramento  Valley  th(^ 
average  cost  of  plant  per  acre  irrigated  was  $63.04.  The  cost  varied 
from  $5.77  to  $208.33  per  acre.  In  Santa  Clara  Valley  the  investment  in 
pumping  plants  ranged  from  $18.75  to  $144.21  per  acre  with  an  average 
of  $71.39  per  acre.  Plants  tested  in  San  Joaquin  Valley  cost  from  $13.30 
to  $179.30  per  acre. 


COST  OF  WATEK  TO   IRRKIAToHS. 


(11 


PLATE  X. 


Fir..    1.     Holder  irrigation  of  alfalfa  in  Imperial  Irrigation  District. 


Fig.   2.     Dredging  silt   from    Inip<rial   Canal;   a   major   itt-m  of  irrigation  main- 
tenance in  Imperial  Valle\-. 


(32  DEPARTMENT  OF  I'T'P.Lir  WORKS. 

APPENDIX. 

The  following  report  on  "Cost  of  Water  for  Irrigation  in  Southern 
California"  has  been  taken  from  the  original  papers  prepared  by  the  late 
C.  E.  Tait,  Senior  Irrigation  Engineer,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 
which  appeared  in  the  Seventh  Biennial  Report  of  the  California  State 
Department  of  Engineering  and  in  the  Febiuary,  1923,  issue  of  the 
California  Citrograph.  The  cost  data  given  in  these  two  papers  were 
taken  from  a  table  compiled  by  the  author  under  the  supervision  of 
Mr.  Tait.  This  tabulation  has  never  been  published  and  will  appear  at 
the  end  of  this  Appendix.  The  field  data  were  collected  in  1919  and 
1920  by  F.  D.  Bowlus,  H.  F.  Blaney,  H.  M.  Lukens,  Thos.  H.  McCarthy 
and  C.  E.  Tait. 

COST  OF  WATER  FOR  IRRIGATION  IN  SOUTHERN  CALIFORNIA. 

By  C.  E.  TAIT. 

In  no  part  of  Western  United  States  has  the  value  of  irrigation  water 
become  better  estal)lished  than  in  the  fruit  growing  sections  of  southern 
California.  This  value  may  be  stated  in  terms  of  a  definite  quantity  of 
water  or  it  may  take  form  in  the  price  of  shares  in  a  mutual  water  com- 
pany. 

The  capital  value  of  water  is  greater  where  the  annual  charges  for 
delivery  to  the  land  are  low  than  where  the}^  are  high.  Chiefly  for  this 
reason  the  water  user  is,  as  a  general  rule,  willing  to  pay  more  for  a 
title  to  water  diverted  by  gravity  from  the  streams  than  for  that  pumped 
from  wells.  Gravity  water  as  a  class  has  market  at  $1500  to  .$2000  per 
miner's  inch  or  its  equivalent  amount  and  under  the  most  favoral)le 
combination  of  circumstances  $2500  per  miner's  inch,  while  pumped  water 
is  worth  $1000  to  $1500  for  the  same  amount.  (The  miner's  inch  used  in 
southern  California  is  the  one-fiftieth  (1/50)  part  of  a  cubic  foot  per 
second,  and  is  not  the  statute  inch  of  the  state,  which  is  the  one-fortieth 
(1/40)  part  of  a  cubic  foot  per  second.)  In  addition  to  the  annual  cost 
of  making  the  water  available,  other  influences  on  the  cajiital  value 
ar(>  the  sufficiency  and  stability  of  the  water  supply,  th(^  h^gal  character  of 
the  water  right,  and  last,  but  not  least,  the  value  of  the  products  of 
irrigation.  It  is  the  latter  that  makes  the  value  of  water  in  soutliern 
California  exceed  that  of  any  other  part  of  \\\o  arid  region. 

The  position  has  been  taken  by  some  who  have  struggled  with  ihv 
problems  of  fixing  water  rates  under  public  utiliti(\s  that  if  all  tlie  facts 
\v(Me  known  it  would  be  found  that  the  mai'ket  value  of  water  is  nothing 
more  than  approximately  the  total  spent  in  developing  the  water,  and 
that  the  proper  way  to  value  a  water  right  is  merely  to  determine  the 
cost  of  the  woi'ks  that  mak(^  the  water  available.  Without  discussing 
here  the  proper  basis  foi'  rate  fixing  under  public  utility  water  comijunies, 
it  is  certain  that  this  theory  is  not  suppoi't(Hl  by  the  facts.  As  already 
suggested  the  present  value  of  the  stock  of  the  older  water  compani(>s 
that  constructed  gravity  systems  at  low  cost  por  acre,  generally  nnich 
ex(;eeds  the  oj-igiiial  cost,  wiiile  the  stock  of  the  later  organizations,  so  many 
of  which  must  punij)  the  water  at  greater  annual  cost  of  operation,  has 
not  appreciated  nuich,  if  any.  (conceding  that  part  of  the  diffeicnce  is 
due  tf)  water  I'ights  and  amounts  of  indebtedness  carried,  both  in  favoi- 
of  the  okler  systems,  it  is  ckvuly  aj)parent  that  the  water  user  gives  a 


r.;^ 


d  that  the 
1  first  f'ost. 
clop  \vat(>r 
•ascs  water 
loprociatcd 
d  extended 
1  coinpaiiy 
in-oundiiifi- 

!;ally  make 
wlicrc  this 
isetl  to  the 
land,  and 
mt  market 
;ists  under 
iter  appnr- 
2m  and  to 
andowners 
any  share 

transfer  of 
sion  of  its 
ler  the  last 
3iit  on  the 

and  they 
oimt. 

al  in  water 
?r  thev  use 

The'^totai 
the  sum  of 
neluded,  is 
the  capital 
)ital  stock; 
sed  at  any 
mpany  are 

deduction 
the  reason 
not  to  the 
ged  to  the 

lies  do  not 
provement 
3  made  on 
g  expense. 

by  ass  ess- 
Mr  capital 
mder  state 
le  revenues 
it  of  water 

water. 
i  first  and 
stock  and 


.APPENDIX)      COST   OF    WATER    UNDER   SOUTHERN    CALIFORNIA    IRRIGATION    C  0  M  PANICS -1918. 

PREPABED    Bv    C.    E     TAIT. 


2 
Location 

11 
Tj-pc  of  company 

Area  irrigated 

Capital  stock 

Factors  in  coat  of  water 

Cost  of  water 

4 

1 
1 

I 

5 
1 

6 

D 

1 

7 

i 

S 

i  1. 

9 

1 

10 

D 

i  - 
■  ^ 

;  7i 

11 

11 

:  a, 

i  i- 

i  a- 

;  1 

12 
g 
f 

r 

13 

rl 

;  i 
■  a 
it 

14 

ll 

;  2. 

15 
t 

s. 

i  ■ 

16 

ll 

ll 
Is 
11 

17 

Water  rate 

20 

1} 

h 

For  first 
aorc-foot 

Per  acre 
for  average 
amount  used 

Per  acre-foot 
for  average 
amount  used 

1 

Name  of  company 

18 

r 

7 

5" 

19 

1 
1 

t 

21 

l|i 

;  -si- 
;  a.1 

22 

4 

1.1 

ll 
i  i 

1  I 

:  § 

23 

4 

t 

;  t 

:  r 

24 

a.2. 

M 

II 

;  S 
i  t 

25 

t! 

;  S 

26 

fl 

ll 
■  i 

:  1 

27 

4 

si. 

li- 
lt 

1  § 

Mutunl 
Mutunl 
Mutuul 
Mulunl 
Mulunl 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Umncorporutcd 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutunl 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutunl 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutuul 
Mutuul 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Muliml 
Mulunl 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutuul 
Mulunl 
Mutunl 
Mutual 
Mutuul 
Mutual 
DiflUict 
Mulunl 
Mutunl 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Muturil 
Mutual 
Mutuul 
Mutual 
Mulunl 
Mutual 
Muluul 
Muiuul 

Mutual 
Mutual 

Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mulual 
Mutual 
Mulunl 

Mulual 

Mutual 
Mutual 
Mulual 
Mulual 
Mutual 
Mutual 
Mutual 

Mutual 

Mutual 

Mutual 

Mutual 

Mutual 

Mutual 

Mulunl 

Mulunl 

Mulunl 

Mulunl 

Mutunl 

Mutual 

Mutual 

Public  utility 

Public  utility 

Public  utility 

Public  utility 

Public  utility 

Public  utility 

Public  utility 

Public  utmty 

Public  utility 

PubUc  utility 

Public  utility 

Public  utility 

Public  utility 

Public  utility 

niijiir  utility 

100 
10 
0 
23 
100 
0 
75 
0 
25 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
95 
0 
0 
100 
0 
100 
0 

too 

100 

100 

25 

45 

100 

100 

20 

0 

0 

0 

14 

25 

73 

100 

100 

100 

100 

0 

0 

10 

120 
T.500 

"V,921) 
168 

'""ioo" 

800 

120 
8.000 
4,000 
3.9^9 
269 
600 
2,850 
1,000 
1,110 

1  08 

i.ei 
2,00 
2,00 
1,02 

1  03 
I  90 
1  00 
0  70 

300 

8.004 
3.698 
11.787 

269 
14,000 
3,245 
1,000 

630 
83,527 
3,321 

443 

11)6 
1,500 

806 
8,005 
16.600 

421 
3.915 
2,743 

il50 
2.160 
.1,184 
.5,034 

600 

10,000 

3.582 

226.000 

2.500 

no 

1.2.59 

222,450 
2.30(1 
2.08*: 
3,909 
12.288 

730 
1 ,000 
1,282 
1.123 

400 
1.920 

500 

$80  00 
100  00 
5  00 
J  5  00 
20  00 

1.5  m 

.50  00 

'31  81] 
20  00 
100  00 
10(1  no 

IOO  MO 
IOO  on 
IOO  00 
.5(1  110 
](j  no 
lOIJ  00 
HI  00 
1  uo 
100  0(1 
10  IRI 
50  on 
10  on 

100  00 

50  (I'l 
IIJO  (III 

10  on 
10  on 

1(10    111! 

Hi  1)11 

1  1)11 

100  0(1 

101)  on 
lot)  1)1) 

50  00 
5  l)(J 

50  (10 
100  00 
100  00 
IOO  00 

100  00 

100  00 

iioo'oo" 
20  60 

100  00 

"is'oo 

175  00 
100  00 

"26"66' 

150  00 

150  00 
160  00 
100  00 
125  00 
90  00 
15  00 
100  00 

166' 66" 
35  00 

175  00 
15  00 
IOO  00 
100  00 
100  00 
17  00 
17  50 
100  00 
150  00 
0  96 
300  00 
500  00 
200  00 
IOO  00 
2  00 

'"75'66' 
100  00 

ioo" 66" 
200  00 

1.00 

1.00 
0.92 

3.00 
1.00 
10.00 
1.14 
1  00 

0  57 
9. 00 

1  00 
1  00 
1  00 
1.09 

1  00 
1.50 
B.64 
100 

4  00 

2  00 
1  00 

5  68 
1  00 

10.00 
1  00 
3,00 
1,19 

12.55 
0  74 

0  20 

1  00 
150.00 

1  to 

1  00 
1.00 
2.00 
1  46 
1  00 
1  28 
1  12 
1  33 
i  00 
1.00 

S8000 
100  00 

IB  40 

300  00 
20  00 
150  00 

199  50 
100  00 

18  18 
180  00 
1.50  00 
150  00 
160  00 
109  00 
125  00 
135  00 

99  60 

100  00 

40  00 

2  00 
100  00 
11,8  40 
175  00 
150  00 
100  00 
300  00 
119  00 
213  35 
12  95 
20  00 
150  00 
142  .50 
300  00 
500  00 

200  00 
200  00 

2  92 
50  00 

w  00 

112  00 
133  33 

400  00 
200  00 

S4  30 
6  00 

1  10 
18  00 

1  20 

9  00 
11  97 

6  00 

1  UU 

10  80 
9  00 
9  00 
0  60 

6  54 

7  50 

8  10 

5  98 

6  00 

2  40 
0  12 
6  00 

11  90 
10  50 

9  00 

6  00 
18  00 

7  14 

12  80 

0  78 

1  20 
9  00 

8  55 
18  00 
30  00 
12  00 
12  00 

0  18 

3  00 

5  76 

6  72 

7  99 
24  00 
12  00 

None 
None 
$1  84 

4  50 

0  50 
Nono 

6  73 
0  50 
2  74 

7  20 

6  00 

8  00 
13  50 

7  63 
16  00 

18  00 

0  37 

2  50 

3  20 

1  00 
None 

1   19 
0  30 

"5' 66" 

12  00 

9  25 

9  41 
0  24 

5  00 

6  00 
None 

4  00 

0  80 
9  00 

None 
None 

1  25 

19  25 

11  20 
10  00 

5  00 

7  50 

0  91 

1  87 
4  33 
1  57 

1  60 

2  37 
2  50 
2  89 

1  72 

2  66 

4  17 
2  67 
2  00 

12  80 
None 
None 

1  00 
1  68 

8  64 
None 

0  10 
None 
None 

10  00 
None 

1  00 

0  93 

9  65 

1  62 
7  26 

6  80 

5  80 

0  80 
5  00 

Nono 
5  70 

2  50 

3  76 

12  10 

2  50 

1  65 
S  00 

None 

3  00 
26  00 

0  40 

4  00 

7  58 

3  05 
24  78 
17  50 

4  00 

2  00 
None 

0  50 

13  40 

3  00 

10.0015 

.0079 
,0069 
.0029 
0125 
0040 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
0150 
None 
,0075 
0150 
,0350 
0021 
None 
None 
0208 
None 
None 
,0083 
None 
,0045 
None 
.0100 
0O42 
0275 
0300 
0250 
None 
None 
None 

$0  90 
4  75 
4  14 

1  74 
7  50 

2  43 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
Noni; 
None 
None 
None 

9  00 
None 

4  50 
9  00 

21  00 

1  26 
None 
None 
12  50 
None 
None 

5  00 
None 

2  70 
None 

6  00 
2  52 

16  50 
18  00 
15  00 
None 
None 
None 

$1  51 

7  65 

8  26 
3  48 
7  65 

2  50 
Noup 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 

6  48 
None 
5  04 

24  39 
16  .38 

1  64 
None 
None 

3  75 
None 
None 

0  00 
None 

10  00 
Noue 

13  26 
3  63 

11  22 

25  38 
20  40 
None 
None 
None 

■"$125" 
""675" 

■"6'45" 
1  13 

1  60 
0  55 

2  47 
0  75 
0  35 
4  33 

""3'35" 

3  57 

■"'2"57" 

0  80 

1  33 

1  00 

""2"6r 

'"io'oo" 

11  20 
8  33 

4  17 

6  00 

10  00 

4  75 

5  98 

5  49 
8  00 
2  43 

6  73 
0  60 
2  29 

$5  70 

10  75 

7  08 
23  49 
9  20 

11  43 
18  70 

6  50 
3  38 

$1  51 

6  40 

10  12 

7  23 

8  15 
2  50 
0  73 
0  60 
2  29 

$6  31 
12  40 
11  22 
25  23 
9  36 
11  50 
18  70 
6  50 
3  38 

so  90 
3  98 
5  06 
3  62 
7  90 

2  43 

3  54 
0  50 
3  27 

$3  76 

500 
2.500 

7  70 

Downey 

1.500 

6  61 
12  62 

A»u8a  IrriBBting  Co. 

103 

1300 

2,850 

900 

10 

11  17 

Banning 

9  85 
6  50 
4  S3 

Bantu  Ujtch  Association 

BcafdBic*  Water  Ditch  Co..,- 

Duarte 

24 

275 

Bear  Valley  Mutual  Water  Co 

H<.il:.ll.l>                           --1- 

Rodiiinda 

Whitlier 

l.SOO 
443 

186 
1,380 

806 
3,000 
2,500 

1,800 

443 

196 

1.38U 

806 

3,000 

2.500 

400 

1,000 

1,350 

1.000 

380 

4.000 

400 

COO 

4,500 

3.000 

1.800 

700 

585 

1.259 

1.941 

2,000 

1.160 

3.820 

6,144 

500 

315 

I.OOO 

1.000 

300 

480 

500 

2  00 
2  00 
2.00 
■2  00 

2  00 
1  57 

1  00 

3  24 
0  90 

2  40 

0  72 

2  40 

1  12 

0  78 
1.30 
0  85 
1,66 

0  30 

1  00 
1  20 
1  20 
1  26 

3  71 

1  88 

2  21 
1  44 

0  68 

1  41 
1  36 
1  20 
1  51 
2,02 

4  4Q 

7  45 

11  03 

6  £8 
10  65 
13  67 

0  37 

2  60 

3  2U 

1  00 

g  00 

1  19 

4  80 
fl  00 

26  00 
0  91 

5  68 

0  41 

12  74 

2  43 
5  20 
4  tl7 

3  00 
3  .50 
9  00 
3  39 
2  52 

17  75 

27  25 
16  00 

1  67 

2  92 
I  60 

13  40 
16  45 

20  63 
13  42 
16  15 

21  77 
6  35 
8  50 
5  60 

1  12 
15  00 
13  09 
15  30 
18  00 

32  00 
27  91 

12  82 

22  21 

13  52 
3  63 

14  20 

12  22 
21  00 

33  50 
21  00 

15  .39 

2  70 

20  75 
33  01 

21  72 
9  66 

26  92 

13  50 

4  40 
7  45 

11  03 

6  88 
10  65 
13  67 

0  37 

2  50 

3  20 

1  00 
6  48 

1  19 

5  34 
24  39 
21  38 
ID  29 

5  68 
9  41 
3  99 

2  43 
5  20 
5  07 

3  00 
10  80 

9  00 
10  65 

3  63 
12  47 
34  63 
20  40 

1  67 

2  92 
1  50 

13  40 
16  45 

20  63 
13  42 
18  15 

21  77 
6  35 

8  50 
5  60 
1  12 

12  48 

13  m 
15  84 
33  39 

27  38 

28  29 

12  82 

22  21 
4  77 
3  63 

14  20 

13  22 
21  00 
40  80 

21  00 

22  65 
3  81 

15  47 
40  39 
27  12 

9  66 
26  92 
13  50 

2  20 

3  73 
5  52 
3  14 
5  33 

8  71 
0  37 
0  77 

3  60 
0  42 

9  00 
0  50 

4  77 
0  00 

27  42 
7  02 

0  68 

5  67 
13  JO 

2  43 
4  33 
4  22 
2  38 
2  91 
4  79 

1  82 

2  52 
18  33 
24  58 
15  00 

1  i'i 
1  03 
0  74 

6  70 

8  23 

10  32 

6  71 

<A  08 

13  86 

"375' 

ll' 

16* 

6  35 

2  62 

CatclhtcbCo 

Hivem 

Cbino____ 

Hightandt 

250 
50 
380 
3.825 
400 

mo 

4.500 
2,300 
1,800 

800 
950 

300 

0  47 

(.-ili;.:,-  I-....I   .M  !  "  ,r.f  Co,  iifBloomiligton 

fh.r.  I,...'     ■    -"I     V,  ,(,tCo - 

100 

25 

60 

14  14 

12  32 

36  10 

CuiyujimgaWuttrCo,     _ 

Del  Monte  Imgaiion  Co 

700 

700 

15  90 

545 
1,259 
1,500 

800 

900 
3.500 
6.144 

50" 

1. 000 

1.000 

SO 

480 

500 

40 

3  63 

11  83 

E»c«ndido  Mutual  Water  Co 

Eliwunda  Water  Co - 

Eacondido 

1,200 
10 

11  02 

16  67 

RUmore 

Foii(:m3.                  

RlV.TM.!.                              

G]L.';.Uurii.._ _ 

Gicndora. 

250 
300 

26' 

10  99 

Gage  Canal  Co --- 

Gardeiia  Water  Supply  Co 

Garvey  Waler  Co 

20 
2S0 

480 
15 

2  65 
22  75 
28  66 

Glcndora  Mutual  Water  Co, 

19  95 

250 

8  06 

17  83 

6  68 

ilCentro- 

Imperial  Water  Co  No.   1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

100 

0 

100 

100 

0 

0 

0 

100 

0 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

100 

fi7 

0 

47 

100 

0 

0 

1) 

10 

1110 

100 

0 

20 

100 

10 

90 

100 

0 

50 

0 

60 

100 

100 

93 

100 

85 

70 

100 

100 

100 

25 

0 

27 

100 

100 

20 

S 

100 

0 

0 

0 

100 

0 

0 

0 

0 

37.545 

77.307 

114,850 

6.400 

44,000 

19.000 

76.000 

20.540 

19,180 

38,000 

IS.OOO 

13,100 

18,000 

2.000 

1,000 

300 

185 

1,500 

2,800 

3,000 

700 

400 

735 

906 

1,200 

126 

950 

792 

350 

1.800 

280 

350 

32,000 

1,000 

921 

8.111 

2.350 

B09 

1.200 

5.000 

452 

17.428 

2.200 

528 

947 

500 

1,268 

1,450 

475 

1,400 

4,082 

309 

1,575 

404 

781 

2,000 

2.500 

2,051 

200 

1.065 

100 

700 

2,500 

5,500 

480 

550 

6.600 

525 

700 

6.148 

3,000 

4.200 

1,000 

3  15 
3  05 

3,00 
3  02 
3  20 
3  00 
3  14 

2  89 

3  00 
3  20 

3  10 

0  82 

1  92 

1  8J 

2  16 
2.00 

1  20 

2  64 
0  64 
1.80 
1,86 
0,80 
0  H9 
1,27 

0  82 
1.00 
2.49 
2  23 

1  90 
1  31 

4  00 
1  20 

1  50 

2  72 
2  00 

1  911 

2  00 
1  20 
1  68 
1  85 
1  07 
1  27 

1  71 

2  08 

1  60 

2  23 
1  07 

1  02 

2  04 
2  33 
2  411 

1  51 

2  34 
1.50 
1  08 
0.63 
0  80 

0  33 

1  30 
1  00 
1  00 
1,00 
1,73 
0.61 
1   10 

0  75 
1,00 

1  25 

2  78 

0  115 

1. 00 

09.066 
6.754 
46.344 

19,801 
88.313 

18.984 

18,743 

39,050 

18,607 

1.5,300 

18.300 

24.500 

3.200 

241! 

200 

1,500 

.1.1.50 

3.238 

1.120 

4.000 

2,050 

906 

1,250 

126 

1,000 

792 

500 

4,8U0 

33,840 

6,000 

35.372 

216.000 

921 

19,721 

4,526 

2,107 

8,224 

6,064 

1.231 

17,428 

2.178 

528 

947 

I.OOO 

12.685 

2.916 

2.400 

1.400 

8,333 

368 

1.500 

3110 

781 

2.500 

2,768 

3,500 

10  0(1 
10  on 

10  00 
II)  ou 
10  00 
10  00 

JO  on 
25  00 

10  DO 

25  00 
10  DO 
10  00 
10  00 
50  00 
25  00 
10  00 

IOO  in) 
50  on 
1  0(J 

100  00 
25  00 
50  00 

100  00 

10  00 

100  00 

50  00 

!00  00 

1  00 

10  00 

10  00 

1  00 

25  00 

10  00 

40  00 

23  00 

5  00 

100  00 

50  00 

5  00 

100  00 

40  00 

"toil"  66 
1 00 
10  00 

30  00 

100  00 
100  00 
100  00 
IOO  00 
100  00 
50  00 
100  00 
100  00 
100  00 

25  00 
20  00 
20  00 
16  00 
12  50 
12  60 
12  50 
20  00 
16  25 

'26'66" 
3  00 
70  00 

"ieooo' 

10  00 
140  00 
200  00 

25 "66" 
75  00 
100  00 

ioo' 06" 

150  00 
120  00 
1  00 
14  00 
35  00 
1  00 

10  06 
too  00 

li  00 

250  00 
57  25 

117  00 

100  00 
80  00 

150  00 

28  75 

iio"66' 

70  00 

"200" 06 
100  00 

ioo' 66 

0  80 

1  00 
094 
1  00 
0  94 
0  94 
0  94 
0.!i4 

0  94 

1  00 
1.00 

10  00 
3.20 
1  00 
1  00 
1.00 
1.12 
1  08 
1  00 
1.00 
3,00 
1  00 
1.00 
1. 00 
1,00 
1  00 

1  43 

2  70 
121.00 

17  15 

1  00 

216  00 

1  00 

2  00 

1  90 

2  00 
6.82 

1  21 

2  00 
1  00 

1  00 

1  00 

1  00 

2  00 
10  00 

2  00 
5  05 
1  00 
1  77 
1  00 
0.95 
1.00 
1  00 
1.00 
1  00 
1  00 

20  00 
20  00 
18  80 
15  00 
1!  75 
11  75 

a  75 

18  80 
15  28 
25  00 
20  00 
30  00 
224  00 
50  00 
150  00 
10  00 
156  80 
216  00 
1  00 
100  00 
75  00 
75  00 
100  00 
100  00 
10  00 
100  00 
214  50 
324  00 
121  00 
240  10 
35  00 
216  00 
25  00 
80  00 
100  00 
50  00 
75  00 
302  fiO 
114  50 
117  00 
100  00 
80  00 

150  00 
200  00 

to  00 
57  50 

151  50 
110  00 
123  00 
100  00 
190  00 
100  00 

50  00 
100  00 
IOO  00 
IOO  00 

I  20 
1  20 
1  13 

0  90 
0  70 
0  70 

0  70 

1  13 

0  92 

1  50 
I  20 

1  80 

13  44 

3  00 
9  00 
0  60 
9  40 

12  96 
0  06 
6  00 

4  50 
4  50 
6  00 
6  00 

0  60 

6  00 
12  87 
19  44 

7  26 

14  40 

2  10 
12  96 

1  50 
4  80 

11  40 

3  00 

4  50 
18  15 

6  87 

7  02 
6  00 
4  80 
9  00 

12  00 
0  60 
3  45 
«  OB 

6  60 

7  43 
0  00 

11  40 
U  00 
3  00 
6  00 
6  00 
6  00 

,0008 
.0008 
.0008 
,0008 
,0008 
.0008 
.0012 
0008 
None 
0008 
.0008 
.0083 
None 
0450 
0250 
None 
None 
None 
0175 
None 
,0125 
0025 
None 
.0104 
0150 
,0104 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
0062 
0062 
0104 
0020 
None 
,0222 
.0028 
0250 
0180 
None 
None 
,0005 
0040 
None 
None 
None 
None 
0082 
None 
0112 
0250 
None 
0083 
0150 
0300 
.0125 
0344 
0002 
0181 
0126 
0220 
0076 
0100 
0363 
0083 
0104 
0145 
01.50 

0  50 
0  50 
0  60 
0  50 
0  50 
0  50 
0  75 
0  50 
None 
0  50 

0  50 
4  98 

None 
27  00 
15  00 
None 
None 
None 
10  50 
None 
7  50 

1  50 
None 

6  24 
9  00 
6  24 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
3  72 
3  75 
6  24 
I  20 
None 
13  30 

1  68 
15  00 
10  80 
None 
None 

0  30 

2  40 
None 
None 
None 
None 

3  72 
None 

6  75 
15  00 
None 

4  98 
9  00 

18  00 

7  50 

20  62 

3  75 
10  89 

7  50 
13  20 

4  66 
6  00 

21  78 

6  24 

8  71 

9  00 

1  58 
1  63 
1  60 
1  51 
1  60 

1  50 

2  35 
I  46 

None 
1  60 
I  55 

4  08 
None 
48  87 
32  40 
None 
None 
None 

6  72 
None 

13  95 

1  20 
None 

7  92 
7  38 
6  24 

None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
None 
Noiie 

6  00 

7  50 

12  42 

2  40 
None 

21  01 

3  11 
25  05 

13  71 
None 
None 

0  48 

5  35 
None 
None 
None 
None 

9  20 
None 

16  80 

22  50 
None 

2  m 

7  20 

6  00 
11  76 

20  62 

3  76 
10  89 
12  98 

8  05 

5  02 

4  60 

21  78 

6  22 

17  35 

8  27 

9  00 

"""3"33" 
■"0'85 

■"'4  "25 

'"i"«6 

"  '6"86 
2  00 

'■"406 

"Hi 

3  28 
5  74 

2  9S 

3  01 
3  78 

3  91 

4  55 
3  13 

3  57 

5  6S 

4  08 

6  98 

12  80 
27  00 
15  90 

1  00 
1  68 

5  31 
10  50 

0  10 

6  65 

1  50 
10  00 

6  24 
10  00 

7  17 
9  65 

1  62 

7  26 
6  80 
5  80 
0  80 
5  00 

3  72 

5  20 

8  74 

4  96 
10  50 
15  80 

2  47 

18  00 
10  80 

3  00 
22  00 

0  70 

6  40 

7  58 
3  05 

19  47 
17  50 

7  72 
2  00 

6  75 
15  50 

13  40 

7  98 

4  48 

6  94 
4  11 

3  91 

4  48 

4  61 

5  25 
4  26 

4  49 

7  08 

5  28 

8  78 
26  24 
30  00 
24  00 

1  60 
11  03 
18  27 

4  36 

6  77 

3  98 

4  02 
4  88 
4  91 
6  15 

4  08 
3  57 
6  68 

5  13 

6  08 
12  80 
48  87 
32  40 

1  00 
1  68 
5  31 

5  56 

7  97 
5  11 

4  92 

5  58 

5  61 

6  85 

5  21 
4  49 

8  18 

6  33 

7  88 
26  24 
51  87 
41  40 

1  60 
11  08 
18  27 

1  38 

2  22 
t  33 
I  33 
1  53 
1  01 
1  90 
I  41 

1  19 

2  09 
I  05 
7  42 

6  07 
27  00 
15  00 

0  50 

1  40 

2  01 
10.50 

0  06 

7  05 

1  50 
10  10 

6  24 
10  22 

7  17 

3  87 

0  73 
3  82 

6  24 

1  45 

0  07 

3  33 

2  2! 

4  48 

7  .50 

3  08 

8  75 

14  88 
2  II 

10  79 
10  SO 

1  76 
10  57 

0  55 

4  10 
7  0» 

2  99 
«  55 
7  51 

5  33 

1  32 

6  75 

15  33 
12  41 
10  03 

1  76 

Holtvilie 

2  ei 

ImiJcrialWalcrCo.  No.   3 

1  70 

1  63 

1  74 

1  87 

IruperiulWaterCo.  No.    7 

Holiviile 

2  18 

1  80 

ImiKtriulWaterCo,  No.    9 

1  50 

""m 

970 

:)00 

185 

160 

2,760 

2.800 

600 
400 

■■"260" 
1,080 

"V.36o' 

""m 

30 

2  55 

2(H 

U  Verne  Uud  and  Water  Co 

La  Verne 

28  65 

lii  Veriie  Irrigation  Co 

fi»n  nimoB 

19  17 

1.150 
50 

leo 

30 

Lytle  Creek  Water  and  Imp.  Co 

Rialto 

■■■'266 
100 

6  92 
10  58 

6  10 

11  15 

6  00 
16  00 

12  24 

10  60 

13  17 
22  52 
21  06 

15  52 

21  86 

7  90 
13  76 

6  50 

8  52 

16  60 

11  74 

9  46 
28  65 

22  67 
9  49 

24  00 

15  60 

12  00 
34  00 

1  30 
9  86 

16  67 
9  65 

26  90 

23  50 
19  12 

8  00 

9  75 
21  50 

19  40 

13  98 
9  00 

12  00 

7  SO 

20  62 

3  75 
10  89 

7  60 

13  20 

4  56 
6  00 

21  78 
4  98 
6  24 

8  71 

9  00 

0  10 

13  10 

1  20 
10  00 

7  92 

8  38 
7  17 

9  65 

1  62 

7  26 
6  86 
5  80 
0  80 

5  00 

6  00 

8  95 

14  02 

6  16 
10  50 
23  61 

3  90 
28  06 
13  71 

3  00 

22  00 
0  88 

9  35 

7  58 
3  05 

19  47 
17  60 
13  26 

2  00 

15  80 

23  00 
13  40 

6  64 

6  10 
17  (iO 

5  70 

16  00 
13  92 

8  98 
13  17 

22  62 
21  06 

15  52 
21  86 

7  90 
13  76 

6  50 
10  80 
20  35 

17  92 
10  66 

28  65 
30  38 

10  92 
34  05 

18  51 
12  00 
34  00 

1  48 
12  80 

16  67 

9  65 
26  90 

23  50 

24  66 

8  00 

18  80 

29  00 

19  40 

11  64 

7  20 
6  00 

9  75 

20  62 

3  75 
10  89 

12  118 

8  05 

5  02 

4  50 

21  78 

6  22 

17  35 

8  27 

9  00 

Monela  WalcrCo 

15 
265 

76 

US 
441 
120 
126 

9  46 

7  13 

MoutebcUo.. 

16  16 

Montalvo,. 

10  95 

Monle  Visla  Irrigation  Co... _ 

SOO 

""m 

1,800 
280 
250 

450 
240 

10  95 

«■ 

552 

13  17 

North  Fork  Water  Co 

9  44 

8  17 

Paloumrfs  Irriealion  Co 

pomona.r^.. ::;:::::;:: 

100 

16  68 

Palo  VMde  Mutual  Water  Co 

Palo  Verde 

1  98 

l^lerlt(■  Ijind  and  Water  Co. 

40 
150 

1.925 

2,340 

800 

800 
651 
192 

leO 

■2.528' 
10 

"■■"soo" 

""'ioo 

3.4«9 
"'"466 

liini^on  Ditch  Co 

Uivtrnidc  Water  Co _.. 

ItivL-rEJde  Highland  Water  Co., 

Itivuiu  Hater  Co. -- 

San  Antonio  Irrigating  Co.... 

Riverside.-.    

Riverside-.. 

Riverside... 

3  97 
10  18 
9  00 
6  33 

Son  Antonio  Walw  Co 

5.000 
372 

10,000 
2,200 

"""s6o 

500 

900 
1,300 

476 
I.OOO 
4.082 

270 
1.27B 

'2.666 
2.60O 

23  87 

San  CayeUno  Mutual  Water  Co. 

80 
5.000 

'2.428' 

San  Dimas  Water  Co 

Salicoy  Devc  leprae  tit  Co 

508 
75 

20 
372 

Serrano  Water  .\B8ocifttioi) 

Soulh  Mountain  WnierC-o 

RedbndB..:::::::::::: 

10  36 

Rivera 

Fillmore-..-. 

361) 
150 

0  93 

25 

25 

360 

Tmn.L-Watorrt,  . 
Thermal  Belt  Water  Co. . 
Trnbueo  Waler  Co 

Walnut  Grove  Muiuul  Water  Co,   .                

WI„t(,.r  F,ii-„. Muliuil  Water  Co. 

Ai>i.!.i.,„  i ,;,.)  v^.T-r'and pnwerca.v;.;:::;::: 

I(.',.i,ir,..i,i  UtiJ  Bnri  Water  Co 

iMiM^icrco .......:::::; 

f'ali(.inii:i-Micbipin  land  and  Water  Co. 

Cnrnna  ... 

r\illr.Ti 

S;inta  P:,i.la                   ";;". 

Moiirnvui 

North  whittier.. .:::;:; 

\orbo  Linda 

13  IS 

30 
300 
340 
261 

"2,661 

00 

1.065 

0 

10  08 
9  91 

"'"280 

04 
260 

803 
19  33 
17  96 
2!  98 

HO 

""ioo 

9  00 

Beaumont 

Bell "  " 

18  00 
7  50 

UmandaPark 

20  62 

'"  'aoo 
uoo 

"363 

300 

3,000 

250 

1.800 

4.600 

60 

100 
5.000 

400 

'"■574 
550 

"256 

700 

'125 

■     "2i3 

■■"066 
250 

'  "1,666 
430 
250 

""5,658 

2,150 

600 

250 

3  75 

f  ii\.,nM..>  \\^U-r<  u 

6«nDicgo 

10  89 

San  GaUi.-!  \.,i:,,  W  .,u  ,  r..       '"" 

Santa  CUra  War. ,  .,„.|  im,.  ,ri„n  Co." 

Southern  Caiif'.ri.L,  I..I;-, ,1,1  ,,            

Sweetwater  W^i.tC.,                            

Tujunga  Water  and  PowprCo ','.'.'.'.'.'.'. 

Palndftle 

San  Gabriel 

Batiooy 

Ventura 

National  City 

LosAnaeles.-... 

7  60 
13  20 

4  66 

6  00 
21  78 
4  08 

6  24 

8  71 

9  00 

37104— factngp.  62 

COST   ()!•'   WA'I'i:!;    TO   llJlx'KiAToKS.  C)'i] 

(loei(l(Hl  picfcrriicc  to  the  system  tlmt  is  oporatod  cheaply  and  that  the 
vahie,  althoiij>;h  infhienced  hy,  is  not  eiitii'ely  dependent  upon  first  cost. 
It  is  uiuie('(>ssary  to  say  that  no  one  would  undertake  to  develop  water 
at  an  (>stiinat(Ml  cost  exc(MMlin<2;  its  establislied  value.  In  a  few  cases  water 
slock  has,  thi'ou<>;h  accidental  or  unl'orseen  cii'cunistances,  depreciated 
below  its  cost;  such  as  in  the  case  of  a  city  that  g,YQw  out  over  and  extended 
its  domestic  water  service  to  tcM'ritory  served  by  an  inif>;ation  company 
with  little  demand  tor  the  iiTi<>;ation  I'iohts  because  the  suri'oundinfi' 
country  was  alread}'  irrigated. 

In  Califoi'uia  a  water  company  may  under  its  by-laws  legally  make 
the  water  it  controls  appurtenant  to  the  lands  irrigatcnl;  and  where  this 
l^i'ovision  of  the  law,  sustaiiK^l  by  the  hiohest  court,  is  exercised  to  the 
full  extent,  the  water  can  not  be  sold  separately  from  the  land,  and 
consequently  does  not  in  a  natural  way  acquire  an  independent  market 
value  that  is  outwardly  apparent,  although  such  value  exists  under 
cover  of  the  prices  of  the  land.  Some  compani(\s  make  the  water  api)iu- 
tenant  only  to  the  (uitii'e  tract  to  be  irrigated  by  the  system  and  to 
contiguous  lands,  and  allow  transfers  of  water  between  landowners 
within  these  bounds  so  that  the  user  may  invest  only  in  so  many  share 
as  he  needs  for  the  crop  being  grown. 

A  third  class  of  companies  puts  no  restrictions  on  the  transfer  of 
stock  and  safeguards  its  locality  by  prohibiting  the  extension  of  its 
service  to  new  territory  unless  approved  by  its  directors.  Under  the  last 
two  classes  of  companies  it  is  easy  to  determine  the  value  put  on  the 
water.  The  water  i-ights  are  worth  $100  to  $400  per  acre  and  they 
represent  one-eight  to  one-fifth  miner's  inch,  a  sufficient  amount. 

Not  only  do  the  fruit  growers  invest  large  amounts  of  capital  in  water 
systems,  but  they  also  pay  heavy  annual  charges  for  the  water  they  use 
or  that  their  shares  in  mutual  companies  entitle  them  to  use.  The  total 
cost  of  the  water  delivered  b}^  a  conipan}"  to  a  stockholder  is  the  sum  of 
two  or  three  separate  items.  The  first,  although  not  always  included,  is 
a  proper  charge  and  is  the  interest  on  the  market  value  of  the  capital 
stock;  the  second  is  the  amount  of  any  assessments  on  the  capital  stock; 
and  the  third  is  the  amount  paid  for  the  (}uantity  of  water  used  at  any 
toll  or  rate  in  force.  If  any  part  of  the  revenues  of  the  company  are 
applied  to  payments  on  the  principal  of  bonds  or  loans,  proper  deduction 
must  be  made  from  the  sum  of  the  three  items  mentioned,  for  the  reason 
that  the  payments  on  the  pi-incipal  belong  to  the  cai)ital  and  not  to  the 
operating  account.  Only  the  interest  on  intlebtedness  is  charged  to  the 
annual  cost  of  the  water. 

Although  in  California  all  stock  is  assessable,  some  companies  do  not 
assess  the  stock  every  y(nu-,  but  only  when  some  substantial  improvement 
is  to  be  made  to  their  property  or  when  paynuMits  are  to  be  made  on 
bonds.  They  must  chaige  foi-  the  water  to  meet  the  running  expense. 
Others  make  no  chai'ges  for  the  water  and  raise  all  revenues  by  assess- 
ments. Other  mutual  companies  distinguish  between  their  capital 
and  operating  accounts,  as  i)ublic  service  companies  must  do,  under  state 
regulation,  and  more  consistently  make  the  stock  the  basis  of  the  revenues 
that  affect  the  property  and  value  of  the  stock  and  the  amount  of  water 
used,  the  l)asis  of  the  revemie  to  nuH>t  the  cost  of  delivering  water. 

Of  the  three  items  that  make  the  total  cost  of  water,  the  first  and 
second  are  fixed  charges  because  they  relate  to  the  share  of  stock  and 


02 


^  The  folio 
California" 
C.  E.  Tait, 
which  appe; 
Department 
California  ( 
taken  from 
Mr.  Tait.    ' 
the  end  of 
1920  by  P\  ] 
and  C.^E.  T 

COST  O 


In  no  par 
become  bett 
California, 
water  or  it  i 
pany. 

The  capit 
deliyery  to  1 
reason  the  ^ 
title  to  wate 
from  wells, 
miner's  inch 
combination 
is  worth  $10 
southern  Ca 
second,  and 
(1/40)  part 
of  making  i 
arc  the  sufhc 
the  water  i-i 
irritjation. 
California  e> 
The  positi 
l)i'ol)lem.s  of 
were  known 
more  than  a 
that  the  pro 
cost  of  the 
here  the  pro] 
it  is  certain 
suss;ested  th 
that  const  ru 
exceeds  the  o 
of  which  niu 
not  appiccia 
due  to  wa(e) 
of  the  older 


COST  OK   WA'I'KK    I'O   IRRIGATORS.  63 

(l(M'i(l('(l  pictci'ciu'c  to  the  systtMii  that  is  operated  clicaply  and  tliat  the 
vahi(\  although  iufhuMicod  by,  is  not  ontii'cly  dependent  upon  fii'st  cost. 
It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  no  one  would  undertake  to  develo})  water 
at  an  estimated  cost  excee(lin«i;  its  estal)1ish(>(l  \-alue.  In  a  few  cases  water 
stock  has,  tlu'ough  accidental  or  unl'orseen  circumstances,  d(»preciated 
below  its  cost;  such  as  in  the  case  of  a  city  that  grew  out  over  and  extended 
its  domestic  water  service  to  territory  served  by  an  irrigation  company 
with  little  demand  for  the  iri'igation  I'ights  because  the  surrounding 
count I'v  was  already  irrigated. 

In  California  a  water  company  may  under  its  by-laws  legally  make 
the  water  it  controls  apj^urtenant  to  the  lands  irrigatcnl;  and  where  this 
provision  of  the  law,  sustain(Hl  by  the  highest  court,  is  exercised  to  the 
full  extent,  the  water  can  not  l)e  sold  separately  from  the  land,  and 
consequently  does  not  in  a  natural  way  acquire  an  indcpentlent  nuu'ket 
value  that  is  outwardly  apparent,  although  such  value  exists  under 
cover  of  the  prices  of  the  land.  Some  companies  make  the  water  appur- 
tenant only  to  the  entire  tract  to  be  irrigated  by  the  system  and  to 
contiguous  lands,  and  allow  transfers  of  water  between  landowners 
within  these  bounds  so  that  the  user  may  invest  only  in  so  many  share 
as  he  needs  for  the  crop  being  grown. 

A  third  class  of  companies  puts  no  restrictions  on  the  transfer  of 
stock  and  safeguards  its  locality  l)y  prohibiting  the  extension  of  its 
service  to  new  territory  unless  approved  by  its  directors.  Under  the  last 
two  classes  of  companies  it  is  easy  to  determine  the  value  put  on  the 
water.  The  water  rights  are  worth  $100  to  $400  per  acre  and  they 
represent  one-eight  to  one-fifth  miner's  inch,  a  sufficient  amount. 

Not  only  do  the  fruit  growers  invest  large  amounts  of  capital  in  water 
systems,  but  they  also  pay  heavy  annual  charges  for  the  water  they  use 
or  that  their  shares  in  nnitual  companies  entitle  them  to  use.  The  total 
cost  of  the  water  tleliv(M-ed  l)y  a  company  to  a  stockholder  is  the  sum  of 
two  or  three  separate  items.  The  first,  although  not  always  included,  is 
a  proper  charge  and  is  the  interest  on  the  market  value  of  the  capital 
stock;  the  second  is  the  amount  of  any  assessments  on  the  capital  stock; 
and  the  third  is  the  amount  paid  for  the  quantity  of  water  used  at  any 
toll  or  rate  in  force.  If  any  part  of  the  levenues  of  the  company  are 
applied  to  payments  on  the  principal  of  bonds  or  loans,  proper  deduction 
must  be  made  from  the  sum  of  the  three  items  mentioned,  for  the  reason 
that  the  payments  on  the  principal  belong  to  the  capital  and  not  to  the 
operating  account.  Only  the  interest  on  in(.lel)tetlness  is  chargctl  to  the 
annual  cost  of  the  water. 

Although  in  California  all  stock  is  assessable,  some  companies  do  not 
assess  the  stock  ev(My  yeai',  but  only  when  some  substantial  improvement 
is  to  l)e  made  to  thinr  property  oi-  when  payments  are  to  b(>  made  on 
bonds.  They  must  charge  for  the  water  to  meet  the  running  expens(\ 
Others  make  no  charges  foi-  tiir  water  and  raise  all  revenues  by  assess- 
ments. Other  mutual  companies  distinguish  l)etween  their  capital 
and  op(M-ating  accounts,  as  public  s(M-vic(>  companies  must  do,  under  state 
regulation,  and  more  consist (>ntly  make  the  stock  the  basis  of  the  revenues 
that  affect  the  property  and  \alue  of  the  stock  and  the  amount  of  water 
used,  the  basis  of  the  revenue  to  meet  the  cost  of  delivering  water. 

Of  the  three  items  that  make  the  total  cost  of  water,  the  first  and 
second  are  fixed  charges  because  they  relate  to  the  share  of  stock  and 


()4  DEPARTMENT  OF   ITIUJC  WORKS. 

iimst  be  paid  whether  any  water  is  used  or  not,  but  the  third  varies  accord - 
iiip;  to  the  amount  of  water  used  by  tlie  stockliolders.  This  tooetlier 
with  the  fact  tliat  the  (j[uautity  of  water  used  ])er  acre  is  not  uniform  makes 
it  a  complex  matter  to  fairly  comj^are  the  cost  of  water  under  different 
companies.  To  compare  the  cost  "per  acre"  is  unsatisfactory  where  the 
duty  varies,  and  to  comjxire  it  "per  acre-foot"  (obtained  by  dividing 
the  cost  per  acre  b}^  tlie  thity  of  water  in  acre-feet)  is  objectionable 
where  fixed  and  variable  charges  are  added  to  obtain  a  total  cost.  In 
some  respects  the  truth  is  more  nearly  approximated  b}^  stating  the  cost 
in  terms  of  the  "first  acre-foot;"  that  is,  assuming  that  all  fixed  charges 
as  well  as  the  price  of  that  amount  of  water  are  applied  against  the 
first  acre-foot. 

A  tabulation  entitled  "Cost  of  Water  under  Southern  California 
Irrigation  Companies"*  has  been  prepared  from  cost  data  collected 
for  the  year  1918.  It  includes  about  100  mutual  w^ater  companies  and 
15  public  utilities  water  companies. 

On  account  of  the  complications  that  would  arise  from  the  many 
variable  conditions  influencing  the  cost  of  water,  it  has  not  been  possible 
to  classify  companies  and  summarize  and  compare  costs  according  to 
source  of  water  or  crops  irrigated,  or  other  plan,  but  the  table  prepared 
gives  for  each  system  the  approximate  proportions  of  the  water  pumped 
and  obtained  b}^  gravity,  the  area  of  each  crop  irrigated,  and  the  duty 
of  water  as  w^ell  as  all  of  the  basic  figures  relating  to  shares  of  stock, 
assessments,  and  water  rates  from  which  the  fiscal  costs  have  been 
calculated,  so  the  reader  may  draw  his  own  conclusion  as  desired.  For 
the  purpose  of  this  review  the  following  brief  summary  is  submitted. 

By  far  the  greater  part  of  the  area  irrigated  under  the  companies 
included  in  the  tabulation,  exclusive  of  the  Colorado  River  vallej^s,  is 
growing  oranges  and  lemons.  The  other  crops  include  deciduous  fruits, 
walnuts,  alfalfa  and  truck.  Large  areas  of  lima  beans  and  sugar  beets 
are  grown  along  the  southern  California  coast,  but  they  are  onl}^  in  part 
irrigated. 

The  duty  of  water,  excepting  a  few  unrepresentative  extremes  due  to 
water  shortage,  ranges  from  .68  acre-foot  under  the  Garvey  Water 
Company,  irrigating  deciduous  fruits  at  San  Gabriel,  to  4.00  acre-feet 
under  the  Palo  Verde  Mutual  Water  Company  irrigating  alfalfa  and 
cotton  through  the  long  hot  and  dry  season  of  the  desert  climate  on 
Colorado  River.  Generally  the  duty  of  water  for  citrus  fruits  ranges 
f i-om  one  to  two  acre-feet,  the  lower  amounts  being  for  pumped  and  the 
higher  for  gravity  water.  The  cost  of  the  pumped  water  is  greater 
than  of  the  gravity  w'ater  and  the  results  show  that  the  cost  and  not 
the  requirement  is  the  greatest  influence  on  the  duty  of  water. 

The  cheapest  water  is  found  under  the  old  unlined  ditches  on  the 
San  Gabriel  River,  some  of  which  were  constructed  by  the  Spanish.  The 
companies  are  loosely  organized  and  are  capitahzed  as  low  as  $10  per 
acre,  although  this  can  not  represent  the  true  present  value  of  the  water. 
In  the  absence  of  proper  basis  for  interest  charges  the  main  expense  undiM- 
them  consists  of  fees  paid  to  the  zanjeros  and  amounts  to  less  than  .$3 
per  acre,  or  $1.50  per  acre-foot  under  a  duty  of  water  of  about  two  acre- 
feet.  Under  the  representative  companies  about  $6  per  acre  and  $3  per 
acre-foot  may  be  taken  as  mininunn  cost.  These  are  found  under  some 

•This  tabic  is  similar  to  the  one  prepared  for  1922,  wliioh  Ikis  alrendy  been  explained  in  dcliiil  undor 
niulii:d  wntor  oompaiiirs  in  the  main  report. 


OOST   OF   WATIIK'    TO  TKKICATORS.  65 

of  the  smaller  gravity  systems  \vlici(>  llie  water  rights  are  consorvativoly 
vahuMl. 

The  hijiliest  costs  are  I'ouikI  under  se\-ei-al  systems  near  I  lie  I'ootliills 
of  tlu'  San  (iahi'iel  Mountains,  where  all  the  water  is  |)um|)e(l  from 
wells  under  lifts  of  ov(m-  400  fe(>t.  I'nder  one  of  these  the  duty  of  water  is 
l.Sl  acro-foet  and  the  cost  of  watia-  pei-  acre  $51.87,  of  whieh  amount 
only  $3  is  intei-est  on  the  \vater-rif>;ht  valuation.  Under  another  the 
duty  is  1.41  acr(»-feet  and  the  cost  of  water  per  acre  $40.39,  of  which 
amount  .$5.76  is  interest.  Under  this  system  the  par  value  of  the  stock 
per  acre  is  $128,  but  owinjj;  to  the  expensive  operation  the  value  has 
depreciatetl  to  $96  per  acre.  These  are  exti-emes,  but  undcM'  many  of 
the  older,  larj^er  and  most  representative  water  companies  of  the  orchard 
conHnuniti(\s  tlu>  annual  cost  of  water  to  the  user  reaches  .$30  per  acre. 
Under  companies  of  this  class  the  rights  are  usually  valued  highly  and 
often  about  one-half  th(>  total  cost  is  interest. 

The  following  data  relating  to  a  representative  .system  is  given  as  an 
example.  This  company  iriigated  17,000  acres  of  whieh  10,000  acres  is 
in  citrus  orchard.  Most  of  the  water  is  obtained  by  gravity.  The  stock 
is  appurtenant  to  the  land  and  can  be  sold  by  the  company  only.  The 
shares,  of  which  there  is  one  for  each  acre,  have  a  par  value  of  only  $5 
each.  After  the  first  year  of  its  life  the  company  fixed  the  price  of  its 
shares  by  adding  to  the  par  value  all  assessments  to  date,  together  with 
simph^  interest  on  these.  When  this  information  was  obtained  the  price 
had  in  this  manner  advanced  to  $117  per  acre,  which  amount  in  this 
case  is  the  basis  of  the  interest  charge  in  the  cost  of  the  water.  The 
interest  at  6  per  cent  is  therefore  $7.02,  which  is  the  first  item  in  the  cost. 
The  assessment  was  $1.65  per  acre,  but  of  this  amount  86  cents  was  to 
retire  the  principal  of  indebtedn(>ss,  leaving  only  79  cents  as  the  second 
item  in  the  cost.  The  wat(M-  is  d(>livered  at  rates  which  are  equivalent 
to  $1.68  per  acre-foot,  and  the  duty  of  water  is  1.85  acre-feet,  which 
gives  $3.11  as  the  third  item  in  the  cost.  Therefore,  the  cost  of  the 
water  per  acre  under  the  average  duty  for  this  system  is  $10.92,  and  the 
cost  per  acre-foot,  $5.91.  If,  however,  the  stockholder  used  only  one 
acre-foot,  its  cost  would  be  .$9.49. 

The  average  cost  of  water  under  the  public  service  companies  is  less 
than  the  average  under  the  mutual  companies.  This  must  not  be  taken 
as  a  compai'ison  of  the  merits  of  the  two  classes  of  enterprises.  The 
reason  is  that  the  jniblic  companies  are  nearly  all  of  earl}'  origin  and 
have  gravity  water  to  sell,  while  so  many  of  the  mutual  companies, 
beginning  later,  can  obtain  water  only  by  pumping.  About  450  incorpor- 
ated water  compani(>s  are  opei-ating  iriigation  plants  in  southei-n  Cali- 
fornia, and  of  these  less  than  40  are  selling  water  for  profit.  The  jiopu- 
larity  of  the  mutual  company  in  this  region  seems  to  be  due  to  two  main 
reasons:  Nearly  all  of  the  valley  lands  were  in  Spanish  grants  and  wei'e 
never  owned  ])y  the  govermnent;  this  promi)ted  the  a(.'<iuisition  by  pro- 
moters of  huge  ti'acts  for  subdivision  and  sal(%  together  with  watei"  for 
iri'igati<^)n;  and  the  best  way  to  transfer  the  water  j)lants  to  the  settlers 
was  through  the  organization  of  nuitual  companies.  The  other  reason 
for  till'  preference  for  nmtual  water  comjianies  ovei'  other  forms  of 
irrigation  organizations,  is  that  no  other  form  places  the  control  so 
exclusively  in  the  actual  watei-  uscm's,  which,  like  the  coopcM'ative  maiketing 
of  fiuit.  has  appealed  to  the  chai-acteristic  independence  of  the  fiuit 
growers,  as  a  chiss. 


()(! 


DEPARTMENT  OF  ITBLIC  WORKS. 


The  cost  of  water  under  individually  owned  piiiiii)ins  plants,  of  which 
there  arc  hundreds  in  the  oichaid  districts,  is  not  fai-  different  from 
that  under  the  companies,  as  the  sani(>  elements  of  cost  exist,  although 
they  may  be  under  different  names.  A  question  often  asked,  is:  "How 
high  can  water  be  pumped  economically?"  Considering  this  only  for 
the  irrigation  of  citrus  fruits,  it  may  he  stated  that  numerous  plants 
ai-e  lifting  water  400  feet,  and  over,  where  the  territory  irrigated  is  in  a 
prosperous  condition.  Under  two  systems  iri'igating  lemons,  water  is 
lifted  700  to  850  feet  for  small  portions  only  of  the  lands  served.  The 
cost  of  water,  although  high  as  compared  to  manj-  other  regions,  is  a 
small  percentag;e  of  the  total  cost  of  production  of  citrus  fruits.  If  the 
cost  of  production  be  $150  per  acre  and  the  cost  of  water  S20,  the  latter 
may  be  doul)led  without  matei-ialh'  endangering  the  profits  fi-om  a  well- 
managed  orchard. 


r!71(l4      '1-2.".     7r.o 


THIS  BOOK   IS   DUE   ON   THE   LAST   DATE 
STAMPED   BELOW 


BOOKS   REQUESTED   BY   ANOTHER   BORROWER 
ARE  SUBJECT  TO   RECALL   AFTER  ONE  WEEK. 
RENEWED   BOOKS  ARE  SUBJECT  TO 
IMMEDIATE   RECALL 


LIBRARY,   UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  DAVIS 

D4613   (12/76) 


^ 

^'"^ 

/^ 

1} 

i 

1 

^/ 

C- 

w 

1 

./ 

b 

i 

'^1 


X 


\' 


\ 


